Thurrock Council (202502229)

Decision
Case ID	202502229
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Thurrock Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

The resident moved to his current property, a 2-bedroom flat in a block, in December 2024. The council moved him from his previous property as the block was being knocked down. The current property has a shared garden and external sheds for residents to use. The landlord is aware the resident has a medical condition that can affect his mobility. The resident’s mother acts as his representative. Unless it is necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and his mother are referred to as coming from the resident.
On the day the resident viewed the property, the landlord identified window repairs and asked its contractor to attend. The same month the resident reported the toilet was leaking and he had no heating or hot water. The landlord resolved these issues in early January 2025. The same month the resident reported water running down the walls in one of the bedrooms, causing damp and mould. The landlord attended and recommended a survey. It also attended to treat the mould but noted the resident declined the works. In February 2025 the resident asked about being allocated a shed. He also reported ivy on the external wall was starting to grow across his kitchen window.

What the complaint is about

The council’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Rehousing application from his previous property.
2. Concerns about the suitability of the current property and his request for a wet room.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in.
2. Requests for repairs.
3. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
4. Enquiries about a shed.
5. Requests for ivy to be removed.
6. Concerns about the condition of the shared garden.
7. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The following complaints are outside our jurisdiction:
1. The council’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application from his previous property.
2. The council’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the current property and his request for a wet room.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in.
2. Requests for repairs.
3. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
4. Enquiries about a shed.
5. Requests for ivy to be removed.
6. Concerns about the condition of the shared garden.
7. Associated formal complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s complaint about the council’s handling of his rehousing application from his previous property is more suitable for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The resident’s complaint about the council’s handling of his concerns about the suitability of the current property and his request for a wet room are more suitable for the LGSCO.
The landlord did not adequately investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in, and its response to the concerns was unreasonable.
There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows, boiler and communal door. It identified failure in its handling of boiler repairs only and apologised, but this was insufficient to put things right for the resident considering all the failures identified.
There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. The landlord has been unable to complete some of the required works as the resident has declined access. However, the landlord has not done enough to reassure him about what it was doing or considered his request for a temporary move.
The landlord delayed in taking action to identify a shed for the resident. After action was taken, it did not adequately follow up to ensure this matter was resolved.
There were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s requests for ivy to be removed. Due to a lack of records there is no evidence to confirm the landlord ever removed this since the resident moved in.
There is no evidence the landlord has taken any specific actions to investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the shared garden. It has not provided any meaningful updates or reassured him that it has taken his concerns seriously.
There was a minor delay in the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint. It failed to address all of the resident’s complaints at stage 1 and 2. This meant it missed the opportunity to put things right for him sooner.

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 13 March 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £1,825 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £350 for its response to his concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in. £300 for its response to his requests for repairs. £700 for its response to his reports of leaks, damp and mould. £125 for its response to his enquiries about a shed. £125 for its response to his requests for ivy to be cut back. £125 for its response to his concerns about the condition of the shared garden. £100 for its handling of the formal complaint.	No later than 13 March 2026
	Review of window repairs order The landlord must contact the resident’s mother to get photos of the window seals to review its position regarding whether further repairs are needed and confirm the outcome of this in writing.	No later than 13 March 2026
	Window repairs order The landlord must arrange, in writing, a Saturday appointment with at least 7 days’ notice to complete the outstanding window repairs. Prior to attending the landlord should ensure an overgrown bush outside one of the bedroom windows is cut back so it can replace the window. If it cannot attend on a Saturday, it should tell the resident why not and offer at least 3 future dates for appointments for the resident to choose from.	No later than 13 March 2026
	External repairs order The landlord must repair the leak to the roof of the entrance/ lobby and remove the vegetation growing up the external wall.	No later than 13 March 2026
	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the property. The landlord must consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. 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 entire property for any concerns with the walls, flooring, brickwork, damp, mould, necessary repairs, and produce a written report with photographs. The survey must set out: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause/s of any 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 repair and resolution to the issues (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. If it decides temporary alternative accommodation is not necessary, how it will manage any risk and reduce any potential impact on the resident and his family while the works are carried out. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and us a copy of its report by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 13 March 2026
	Shed order The landlord must send the block letter regarding the shed, if it has not already done so. It must confirm in writing to the resident that this has been done and what further action it will take if it does not receive any replies. It must give a timescale by which it expects to be able to give him keys for a shed.	No later than 13 March 2026
	Ivy order The landlord must cut back the ivy so it is not obstructing the resident’s property. If it cannot do this now, it must tell the resident why in writing and confirm when it will do this.	No later than 13 March 2026
	Garden inspection order The landlord must inspect the shared garden. Following this, it must send a written update to the resident including: The outcome of the inspection and its overall assessment of the condition of the garden. Any works or actions it will take, with a timescale for these to be completed. How it will maintain the garden going forward, including how regularly it checks the garden and does gardening works.	No later than 13 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 February 2025	The resident complained, saying: He was not happy with how the council had handled his rehousing application from his previous property. His current property should have a walk in shower but the council had told him it could not do anything about this until April 2025. Since moving in he had issues with the windows, toilet and boiler. There was black mould in one of the bedrooms and bathroom. The landlord had attended to paint over this but this would not resolve the issue. He was meant to have use of a shed but the landlord did not know which one and did not have a key. The communal door fob and buzzer did not work, which meant at times he could not get into the block. There was ivy growing up the outside of the block and the shared garden was full of dog mess.
4 March 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response said: The council’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application from the previous property had not caused any delay in him being rehoused, or affected the properties he was offered. The council was not aware the resident needed a wet room before he moved in. His current property was considered fit to let in accordance with its fit to let standards. It had arranged to visit on 6 March 2025 and would look at the issues with the windows, plumbing and mould. It identified a delay in its handling of a boiler repair in December 2024. For this reason it upheld the complaint and apologised.
March 2025	On 7 March 2025 the resident told the landlord a number of the issues were unresolved, including window repairs, damp and mould, shed keys not being provided, ivy growing up the wall and the shared garden being in poor condition. He said he had been given a bath seat instead of a shower or wet room that he needed. He said it had only fixed the communal door that day, despite this being broken since December 2024. The landlord treated this as an escalation request. Three days later the resident said the outstanding repairs should have been done before he moved in. He had not been able to use the toilet and the heating was not working. He felt the council had not handled his rehousing application properly.
16 April 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response upheld the complaint and apologised. It said: The window repairs had been done correctly. The resident had declined for it to treat the mould. There were no signs of mould in the property before the resident moved in. It had inspected recently and would complete further works. It had previously told him it would not cut the ivy until the nesting season was over, but had decided it would remove this sooner. It was working to address issues in the garden. There was no evidence the resident had reported any repairs for the communal door. It had written to all residents in the block about the sheds. The current property met the medical recommendations made. The council’s allocations team had provided some aids and referred him for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has said there are outstanding repairs to the windows and damp and mould. He has not been allocated a shed, the ivy is still growing up the building and the garden is in poor condition. He wants to be moved out while the landlord resolves the damp and mould and can only give access for repairs to be done on a Saturday as he cannot take more time off work.

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	Council’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application from his previous property
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident raised concerns about how the council’s allocations team dealt with his rehousing application from his previous property. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy.
In this situation, the council was not acting in this capacity as the resident was registered for rehousing via its housing register. This is a function that sits outside its capacity as a landlord. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the council’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application from his previous property. The resident may be able to complain to the LGSCO on this point.

Complaint	Council’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the current property and his request for a wet room
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident raised concerns with the council’s allocations team about the suitability of the property for his medical needs. In response, this team provided aids and referred him for an OT assessment. Again, the council was not acting in its capacity as landlord, as the allocations team dealt with his concerns. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the council’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the current property and his request for a wet room. He may be able to complain to the LGSCO on this point.

Complaint	Concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in
Finding	Maladministration

The resident has said when he viewed the property, he noticed problems with the windows. Following the viewing, landlord staff fed back there was a missing vent and several broken seals. The landlord’s fit to let standard says it will check all windows and repair any broken ones while the property is vacant. We have seen evidence this check was completed when the property was vacant. All windows were noted as being in satisfactory condition, apart from some broken handles, which were replaced.
As part of its response to the complaint, the landlord told the resident the property was fit to let in accordance with its fit to let standard. However, the feedback from landlord staff present at the viewing indicates the windows were not in satisfactory condition. This raises concerns about the thoroughness of the works completed and the accuracy of the landlord’s records.
Based on this, the landlord’s position that the property was fit to let in accordance with the required standard was unreasonable. The landlord asked its contractor to reattend to address the window issues. This was appropriate. The landlord subsequently completed works and we have assessed its handling of these repairs later in this report.
The resident said all the windows were blown when he moved in. The landlord’s fit to let standard says a maximum of 2 misted units can be considered for replacement as part of the works completed when the property is vacant. Therefore, while frustrating for the resident that these were not all replaced before he moved in, it was reasonable that the landlord did not do this.
In early January 2025 the resident raised concerns about damp and mould, which he believed had been present before he moved in. The landlord made internal enquiries and said there was no damp and mould present when the property was vacant. This was incorrect. We have seen evidence that the landlord identified damp and mould in the bathroom and a bedroom when it inspected after the previous resident moved out.
The landlord’s fit to let standards say damp and mould will be identified at specification stage and a survey carried out or remedial works identified and added to the specification. The landlord replastered and redecorated to remove the damp and mould before the resident moved in. However, there is no evidence it sought to identify the underlying cause or address this while the property was vacant. This was a failure and not in line with its fit to let standards.
It is vital that landlords not only treat damp and mould but identify and address the underlying cause. Where the underlying cause is left untreated, it is highly likely the problem will return, as happened in this case. The landlord’s voids policy says it will carry out necessary works to minimise the risk of damp and mould while the property is vacant. The landlord failed to do that in this case. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the property was fit to let in accordance with its fit to let standards. As the landlord had not acted in accordance with these standards or its voids policy, its response to the resident’s concern was unreasonable.
The resident reported a toilet leak in late December 2024 and the landlord resolved this in early January 2025. Subsequently the resident said the toilet was leaking when he moved in. The landlord’s fit to let standards say it will do a full check of the toilet to ensure this is without defect. The records show the toilet was checked while the property was vacant and noted as working.
The landlord was entitled to rely on its records. Therefore, it was reasonable that it said this issue was not present when the property was vacant. We have identified other inaccuracies in the landlord’s records regarding the condition of the property, which are cause for concern. However, we cannot say whether there was an inaccuracy in respect of this issue or not.
We have identified these issues as part of our review of the landlord’s records. When the resident raised his concerns, the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its records to investigate. Its failure to identify any of these issues suggests it did not do this. This was disappointing for the resident and caused him to lose trust in the landlord.
The landlord inspected the property in early March 2025 regarding the resident’s concerns. Considering he had raised multiple concerns in December 2024 and January 2025, the landlord should have inspected the property sooner. It was only as a result of the resident’s formal complaint that it progressed this. This was frustrating for the resident and made him feel the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in. We order the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £350 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge them or put things right.

Complaint	Requests for repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Windows

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes windows. When concerns about the windows were reported on 18 December 2024, the landlord’s contractor said it arranged to attend on 13 January 2025. This was timely and showed it was taking the matter seriously.
We have not seen the outcome of this visit or what works were identified. However, the records indicate works were completed by 7 March 2025, including replacing glass and fitting new seals. The landlord’s website says it will complete non-urgent glazing repairs within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord completed the repairs in 40 working days, double the committed timescale. As the landlord needed to order replacement glass and the works were non-urgent, it is reasonable this took longer than the committed timescale. In this situation the landlord should have kept the resident updated and told him when it expected to complete the repairs. There is no evidence it did this.
The resident said the landlord attended on at least 3 occasions to complete the repairs and arranged to attend a fourth time but did not turn up. This resulted in him taking multiple days off work, which impacted him financially. It is reasonable that the landlord needed to attend twice regarding these repairs so it could identify the works and measure for replacement parts at the first visit and complete the works at the second. The landlord should adequately plan and prepare repair visits so it can complete works with as minimal disruption to the resident as possible. That did not happen in this case and not only was this frustrating for him, it impacted him financially.
The resident raised concerns about the quality of the repairs to the window seals. The landlord addressed this in the complaint response and said the repairs had been done correctly. The resident has provided photos to us that show black sealant on the windows with a messy finish. It is not clear how the landlord has concluded the repairs were done correctly, but based on the photos we have seen this should be considered further. We order the landlord to contact the resident’s mother to get photos of the window seals to review whether further repairs are needed and confirm the outcome in writing.
The landlord inspected the property on 6 March 2025 and identified some blown windows that needed replacing. It has told us it attended on 9 occasions between May and October 2025 but the resident did not give access. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will normally try to give 24 hours’ notice if it needs to access the property. As these repairs were non-urgent, it should have adhered to this.
The landlord said it contacted the resident by phone on 7 occasions to confirm the appointments. We have not seen records of these contacts so do not know what specific appointments they related to or how much notice was given. Due to the lack of records, we are unable to assess whether the landlord gave reasonable notice in accordance with the tenancy agreement. As there were fewer contacts than appointments, it is clear the landlord failed to give reasonable notice on at least 2 occasions, which was frustrating for the resident.
The landlord completed some further window repairs in November 2025, but there are still repairs outstanding. Considering these were identified in March 2025, this is an unreasonable delay. The landlord has attempted to complete the repairs, but it has not been able to evidence that it gave reasonable notice on all occasions. Therefore, some of this delay is attributable to the landlord. The landlord has said the resident has declined to give access. This is not the case as the landlord has noted the resident has said he can give access, but only on a Saturday due to work commitments.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms he is required to give access for repairs and he is encouraged to work with the landlord for this to happen. However, it is important that the landlord is flexible on this and where possible accommodates residents’ requests. In this case, the last appointment the landlord attended in November 2025 was on a Saturday. This was positive and showed it was being flexible to accommodate the resident’s circumstances. As it has previously attended on a Saturday, it is not clear why it has not arranged a further Saturday appointment to complete the works. Had it done so, it may have been able to complete the repairs.
We order the landlord to arrange, in writing, a Saturday appointment with at least 7 days’ notice to complete the outstanding window repairs. Prior to attending the landlord should ensure an overgrown bush outside one of the bedroom windows is cut back so it can replace the window. If it cannot attend on a Saturday, it should tell the resident why not and offer at least 3 future dates for appointments for the resident to choose from.

Boiler

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to installations for space and water heating, which includes the boiler. While the property was vacant, the boiler was capped off. This means there was no heating or hot water when the resident moved in and the boiler needed to be turned on and tested. This is common practice and not a failure. The landlord said it attended to do this on 22 December 2024 but the resident did not give access.
From the evidence provided, it is not clear if the resident was told about this appointment. If he was not told, it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect him to give access. As it is not clear if the resident was aware of this, we cannot make an assessment of whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. The landlord said it left temporary heaters for the resident as it had been unable to turn on the boiler. This was appropriate and showed it was taking the matter seriously. The landlord reattended the following day and turned the boiler on and tested it. This quick follow up again shows the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
The landlord’s website says a total loss of heating will be treated as an emergency repair, which it will complete within 24 hours. The resident reported he had no heating or hot water on 28 December 2024. The landlord has said it attended on 30 December 2024, over the 24 hour committed response time. When the landlord attended it identified parts were required. It ordered these and returned to fit them 2 working days later, on 2 January 2025. This was a reasonable timescale.
While the timescale was reasonable, considering the time of year, the landlord should have offered to provide temporary heaters during this period. There is no evidence it did, which left the resident with no heating for 6 days in winter months. This is particularly concerning as the landlord knows the resident is vulnerable due to his medical conditions.

Toilet

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to installations for sanitation, including toilets. The landlord’s website says containable leaks from a pipe, tank or cistern will be treated as urgent repairs, which it will complete within 5 working days.
The resident reported a containable leak from the toilet on 30 December 2024. The landlord attended 2 working days later, on 2 January 2025. It identified a new toilet was needed and returned to fit this the following day. This means the landlord resolved the leak in 3 working days, within the committed timescale for urgent repairs.
The resident has told us that when the operative identified a new toilet was needed and reported this back to the landlord, it initially declined to replace it and said it would do so in a few months. We do not doubt the resident, but we have seen no evidence of this and so cannot comment further on this concern.

Communal door

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep communal areas in reasonable repair, which includes the communal front door. The resident has said the communal front door was not working properly from December 2024. We have not seen any evidence that he reported this to the landlord as a repair. However, he did refer to this in his complaint of 11 February 2025.
Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord took any action to address this issue and it did not respond to this concern in the stage 1 response. The resident is required to make the landlord aware of any repairs needed. However, there is no set way in which he must do this. As long as he tells the landlord about the repair, it should take action to address and resolve it.
Therefore, the landlord should have taken action when the resident reported the repair as part of his formal complaint. Its failure to do so meant the repair was outstanding longer than it should have been. This was frustrating for the resident, who said the outstanding repair at times prevented him from accessing the building.

Conclusion

The landlord identified a delay in its handling of a boiler repair and apologised, but did not offer any other redress to put things right. Neither did it identify or offer redress for the other failures in its handling of window and communal door repairs. Considering the cumulative effect of the failures a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £300 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble he experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures.
The resident has said he was impacted financially as he had to take time off work for window repair appointments. We will not specifically order compensation for loss of earnings but have considered this as part of the award for distress and inconvenience.

Complaint	Leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord must address damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
The resident reported a leak in one of the bedrooms on 9 January 2025, that was causing water to run down the walls. The landlord noted this was containable and so it was appropriate that it treated it as an urgent repair, which its website says it will complete within 5 working days. The landlord raised this as an emergency repair and attended the same day. This went beyond the landlord’s commitment for this type of repair and showed it was taking the matter seriously.
The operative that attended fed back that there was rising damp and a surveyor inspection was required. Considering water was running down the walls, the landlord should have progressed this urgently. It did not and it was over 2 months until it completed this, on 31 March 2025. This was only after the resident re-reported the damp and mould on multiple occasions and raised his formal complaint.
After the landlord attended on 9 January 2025, it agreed to provide a dehumidifier. This was appropriate to help slow the spread of the damp and mould while it investigated the cause. The landlord delivered this quickly on 13 January 2025. It then raised a job to collect this 2 days later and picked it up on 11 February 2025. This was confusing for the resident as it had not identified or resolved the underlying cause of the damp and mould and he said the dehumidifier was still needed. The landlord should not have removed this until it had resolved the issue as it was necessary to help manage the condition of the property while it worked to achieve a long-term resolution.
The landlord raised a job to treat the mould on 14 January 2025. Considering the resident’s medical condition it was appropriate that it treated this as an urgent repair. The landlord attended in 4 working days, on 20 January 2025, in line with the 5 working day committed response time for urgent repairs. The landlord said the resident declined the mould treatment as this would not resolve the problem. Landlords should seek to identify and address the underlying cause of damp and mould, as well as treating it. The landlord had recommended a surveyor inspect to investigate this, which shows it was trying to identify the cause.
It was appropriate that the landlord treated the mould while it arranged the inspection. This was particularly important in this case as the landlord is aware of the resident’s medical condition. The landlord should have explained this to the resident so he was reassured it was taking actions to address the underlying cause of the damp and mould as well as treating it. There is no evidence it told him this at the time, which left him believing it was not committed to resolving the problem in the long term.
At the inspection on 31 March 2025, the landlord identified a number of issues contributing to the damp and mould and recommended works, including removal of part of the bedroom wall to investigate the level of mould. The resident subsequently said he wanted to be moved out while these works were done because of the possible impact on his and his family’s health. The landlord should have considered this and responded to the resident, particularly considering his medical condition, but there is no evidence it did.
The resident has declined for any works to be done until he is moved and the landlord has told us it has not been able to complete works because of this. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s request to be moved. If it declined to move him, it should have reassured him how it would manage any risk to him and his family while the works were done. Its failure to do this means there has been no progress and the resident is living with worsening damp and mould.
At the inspection on 31 March 2025, the landlord identified works to resolve a roof leak to the entrance/lobby area that was directly next to the bedroom, and removal of vegetation growing against the external wall. The landlord does not need to access the resident’s property to complete these works. Despite this, there is no evidence it has progressed these works.
The landlord has told us works have not been completed as the resident has declined access. It is unreasonable for the landlord to infer blame on the resident for these works not being done, when it does not need him to give access to complete them. This has caused him to feel let down by the landlord and that it does not want to resolve the issue. We order the landlord to repair the leak to the roof of the entrance/ lobby and remove the vegetation growing up the external wall.
The landlord has told the resident and us that it is considering obtaining an injunction to gain access to the property to complete the works. Considering the failures we have identified, we believe there is more it should do before it progresses this, particularly in respect of the external repairs and its communication with the resident.
Following contact with the resident on 4 November 2025 we wrote to the landlord the same day advising there could be a hazard in the property under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It was required to consider and assess if this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard. We are aware the landlord spoke with the resident the previous week and he had declined to give access for works to be done as he wanted to be moved. However, the landlord should have made further attempts to assess the potential hazard in accordance with the required timescales set out in the legislation.
The landlord wrote to us in November and December 2025 and did not indicate whether it had considered this. We are concerned it may not have recognised its obligations under Awaab’s Law as it has not indicated whether the circumstances in the property could be a potential emergency or significant hazard.
We order the landlord to inspect the property and consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or significant hazard. It must assess the possible cause of the damp and mould and whether the property is habitable, considering the resident’s individual circumstances. It must tell the resident the outcome of this inspection, including a schedule of works with timescales and whether it will temporarily move him while the works are being done. If it will not move him, it must tell him how it will manage any risk and reduce any potential impact on him and his family.
We acknowledge it is frustrating for the resident to have to give access for further a assessment to be done. However, due to the length of time that has passed since the landlord’s last assessment (11 months), this is necessary and we urge him to allow access.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay him £700 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact and the landlord has failed to acknowledge them or put things right.
The resident has said his health has been negatively affected by the damp and mould. We cannot determine there was a direct link between his ill-health and the landlord’s failures. This is a matter for a public liability insurance claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures and ordered compensation in recognition of this.

Complaint	Enquiries about a shed
Finding	Maladministration

When the resident viewed the property the landlord noted it could not identify a shed for him to use as it could not access the back garden. It said it would call him to show him where the shed was. There is no evidence it did and the resident spent time and effort chasing this up on at least 3 occasions in February and March 2025.
In the stage 2 response the landlord said it had written to the other households in the block about which shed belonged to which property, as they were not marked. It said it could not risk changing the lock of the wrong one. This was reasonable. The landlord has told us recently that there is no record it received any responses to these letters. The landlord should have proactively followed up with the other residents to ensure it identified a shed for the resident. However, it did not and this has resulted in him not having access to a shed more than a year after he moved into the property.
The landlord has told us it will send another block letter so it can identify a shed for the resident. While positive, it must ensure appropriate follow up is made to resolve this matter. We order the landlord to send the block letter if it has not already done so. It must confirm in writing to the resident this has been done and what further action it will take if it does not receive any replies. It must give a timescale by which it expects to be able to give him the keys for a shed.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. While frustrating for the resident that he has been unable to make use of a shed and has spent time and effort chasing this up, the level of detriment caused is minor due to the nature of the issue. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £125 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.

Complaint	Requests for ivy to be removed
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has confirmed it is responsible for maintenance of the shared garden, which includes the ivy. The resident reported ivy was growing up the building and over one of his windows on at least 3 occasions in February and March 2025. In early April 2025, the landlord told him it would not cut this back until after September 2025, when the nesting season ended. As the resident had reported the ivy was growing over his window, this was unreasonable.
The landlord reviewed this matter as part of the stage 2 complaint and confirmed in its response that following a recent visit it had decided to remove the ivy sooner. This was appropriate considering it was growing over the window. The landlord has told us the ivy was cut back but needs to be done again. The resident has said it has never been cut. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show when this was done or that it told the resident it had done this. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied it did as stated.
The lack of updates has left the resident believing the landlord has never cut back the ivy since he moved in more than a year ago. This is disappointing for him. We order the landlord to cut back the ivy so it is not obstructing the resident’s property. If it cannot do this now, it must tell the resident why in writing and confirm when it will do this.
Due to the multiple failures identified and the extent of the delay, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for ivy to be removed. We order it to apologise and pay him £125 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration failures but is at a low level because the impact on the resident was not significant considering the nature of the issue.

Complaint	Condition of the shared garden
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has confirmed it is responsible for maintaining the shared garden. The resident first raised concerns about the condition of the garden as part of his formal complaint in February 2025. When concerns of this nature are raised, landlords should consider inspecting the garden, liaising with contractors, and sending block letters. There is no evidence the landlord did anything about the resident’s concerns at that time, and it did not address this in the stage 1 response. This left him feeling it was ignoring the issue.
The resident raised concerns about the garden again as part of his escalation request in early March 2025. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it was working to address the issues in the garden but gave no detail on any specific actions it had taken or would take, and we have seen no evidence of any actions taken at that time. It is not clear if this is because no action was taken or because the landlord did not record this. Regardless, this is a failure.
In recent contact to us, the landlord has said the garden is being maintained and provided photos from a recent inspection. It has said there is a problem with dog faeces in the garden and confirmed it will send a block letter about this. While positive that the landlord has taken action to investigate the resident’s concerns there is no evidence it has been in contact with him about this or told him what it has done.
The resident has told us the garden is still not being properly maintained and the landlord has done nothing. While the landlord has taken some recent action, its lack of communication has left him believing it has done nothing since he first raised his concerns more than a year ago. This is disappointing. We order the landlord to inspect the garden to identify any works or actions required. Following this, it must send a written update to the resident including details of how it maintains the garden on an ongoing basis.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the shared garden as there have been multiple failures over an extended period. We order the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £125 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration failures but is at a low level because the impact on the resident was not significant considering the nature of the issue.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s website says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 19 February 2025, 4 working days after it received the complaint. It sent the response 9 working days later. Both were in line with its committed timescales.
The landlord has provided evidence that it formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint, but this did not include the date this was sent. Despite us specifically asking the landlord to provide evidence of this, it has failed to do so. This means we cannot assess whether it acknowledged the complaint in line with the 5 working day committed timescale.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response 28 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was slightly over the combined 25 working day committed timescale for the acknowledgement and response to be sent. We do not know if the delay was in the landlord sending the acknowledgement or the response. Either way, the delay was a short 3 days, so was a minor failure.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaints about the shed, communal door repairs, ivy or condition of the shared garden. Its stage 2 response did not address the resident’s complaints about boiler and toilet repairs. That means these issues were only considered once by the landlord, rather than being reviewed by its 2-stage process.
All of these issues were raised by the resident in his original complaint and escalation request. Therefore, the landlord had the opportunity and obligation to respond. Because of this, we have included all of these issues within the scope of our investigation. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns at both stages was a missed opportunity to independently identify its failures and potentially put things right for the resident sooner.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay him £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration failures where the landlord failed to acknowledge these or take any action to put things right.

Learning

The landlord should identify and address the cause of any damp and mould while properties are vacant, in accordance with its fit to let standards.
The landlord should thoroughly investigate complaints by reviewing its record and its responses should address all of the concerns raised. Where it identifies failure, it should offer redress to fully put things right for the resident.
Where a resident asks to be temporarily moved for damp and mould works to be done, the landlord should consider the request including the resident’s individual circumstances. It should tell the resident the outcome of this and where it declines to temporarily move them, it should tell them how it will manage the works to reduce risk and address any safety concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our investigation has identified gaps in the landlord’s records. In some circumstances this has impacted our ability to fully assess the landlord’s actions. It is not clear if the missing records are because no action has been taken or because the landlord did not record its actions. Either way, these are failures. The landlord should take a proactive approach to improving its record keeping practices so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. The landlord may want to consider accessing learning on this subject via our centre for learning to help it identify any gaps and implement an improvement plan.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor across a number of areas of investigation. It should respond in a timely manner to requests or enquiries. It should provide proactive, meaningful updates on actions taken to reassure residents that it has taken their concerns seriously.