Charnwood Borough Council (202520544)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and condensation in November 2024, and the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey in April 2025. The resident complained in June 2025 about the landlord’s handling of the recommended repairs. The resident has functional neurological disorder, a heart condition, and asthma, and he lives at the property with his wife and 2 young children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
   3. The resident’s request for an asbestos survey.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an asbestos survey.
   4. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

4. The landlord did not complete repairs to address damp and mould within the timescales set out in its damp and mould framework. The compensation it offered was not enough to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation

5. The landlord did not arrange the resident’s move to temporary accommodation in line with its policy and procedure for temporary moves.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an asbestos survey

6. The landlord recognised it had failed to respond to the resident’s request appropriately and apologised in its complaint response, but did not offer compensation, and therefore did not fully put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

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 have not investigated

8. The resident told us he had been reporting damp and mould for several years before making his complaint. Our investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions after the damp and mould survey in April 2025. This is because we expect residents to bring their complaint to the landlord within a reasonable period, usually 12 months.
9. The resident said he was worried about how the damp and mould were affecting his family’s health. The courts are the most suitable place to decide disputes about personal injury or illness because independent medical experts can give evidence. We cannot decide what caused any illness based on the housing file. We can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, but we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, he may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we have investigated

10. The landlord’s damp and mould framework says any follow-up repairs appointments after a damp and mould survey are treated as urgent and will be raised, as far as practicable, on a 5-day work order. Large repairs such as roof replacement, structural work, or damp proofing, have a target completion time of up to 90 days. The framework says the landlord should give the tenant details of the work it will carry out. It also says it will prioritise inspections and repairs for households with respiratory conditions, such as asthma.
11. The landlord completed the damp and mould survey on 7 April 2025. The report recommended the landlord should:
    • clean the mould
    • install a bathroom extractor fan
    • apply a thermal plaster system
    • check, clear and repair the gutters, external joinery timbers and roof coverings.
    • repair damaged brickwork
    • lower the front elevation so the damp proof course was at least 150 mm above ground level
    • repair the pipework in the downstairs toilet
12. Given the vulnerabilities in the household, including the resident’s asthma, the landlord should have prioritised the recommended repairs. In any event, the repairsshould have been completed by 6 July 2025 at the latest.
13. On 16 April 2025 the resident chased the landlord about repairs to leaking pipework in the downstairs toilet. The landlord attended the same day, and fixed leaks on 3 compression joints. It said there may also be a leak under the floor and told the resident to contact it again if he saw water on the floor.
14. The landlord did not arrange any further repairs, and the resident chased the landlord again on 20 May 2025. After the resident’s call, the landlord arranged a further inspection and wrote to the resident on 6 June 2025 with the outcome of the damp and mould investigations. Telling the resident what works it was planning to carry out was in line with its damp and mould framework, but the landlord should have done this sooner.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay and its poor communication. It said it would coordinate internally to ensure it completed all the repairs. It also said it would arrange a temporary move for the resident.
16. Prior to its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord cleared the guttering, fixed the leaking pipework, inspected and cleared the drains, and replaced broken blue bricks. However, several repairs to address damp and mould remained outstanding. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that once the resident had moved to temporary accommodation, it would complete the repairs.
17. After the stage 2 complaint response, there was a delay moving the resident to temporary accommodation. The resident told us the condition of the property deteriorated during this period. On 28 October 2025, he found mould in his child’s bedroom. We sent the landlord a notification of a material change under Awaab’s Law on 29 October 2025. At the time of the resident’s move on 13 February 2026, the landlord had not yet carried out the outstanding remedial repairs to the roof, damp course, or thermal plastering, and repairs to the downstairs bathroom were incomplete.
18. The prolonged delay in carrying out the repairs was contrary to the timescales set out in the landlord’s damp and mould framework.
19. The landlord said the resident refused it access for repairs or damp treatment while waiting for the temporary move. The resident said the landlord told him the repairs would take place after the family moved to temporary accommodation. He said the family’s belongings made it difficult for contractors to access all surfaces, and he was worried about how chemicals used in mould treatment would affect his asthma. He also had concerns that groundwork would remove access to his drive, and he needed to park his car on the drive as he was reliant on it due to his health conditions.
20. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the damp and mould repairs was inconsistent. At some points the landlord said it would do the repairs when the property was empty, and at others it said it could do some of the repairs before the resident moved.
21. The landlord recognised its poor communication in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and said it had assigned a point of contact to support him and improve communication. It gave the resident the contact details to report any additional repairs. The person appointed to this role had left by November 2025.
22. The landlord acknowledged its delays and poor communication and offered £426.65 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. However, in its stage 2 complaint response it did not offer any further compensation for its continued delays. Therefore, it did not fully put things right.
23. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. The impact of the delay and the continued damp and mould was significant. The resident has a heart condition, asthma, and 2 young children. He told us the damp at the property worsened during the wait for a move, and he reported this to the landlord. The family were very concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on their health. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord about his concerns. He also told us he has suffered damage to his belongings because of the damp and mould.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay £750 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble resulting from its handling of the damp and mould.
25. We have also ordered the landlord to give the resident information about how to make a claim through its insurance department for any damage to his belongings because of the damp and mould.

26. The landlord’s decant and disturbance policy sets out its approach to temporary moves. It says the landlord will move tenants to properties that match their needs, including type, size and location, as far as possible.
27. The policy saysthe resident’s needs and preferences must be considered. It requires a needs assessment at the start of the process so the landlord can identify anyone who may need more support. The landlord’s decant procedure also says it will identify any special requirementsduring the first contact with the tenant and before searching for suitable accommodation.
28. Under the procedure, the landlord must contact the tenant within 5 days of being told a temporary move is needed and make prompt arrangements for alternative accommodation.
29. On 27 June 2025, the landlord decidedit needed to move the family to temporary accommodation so it could carry out the necessary remedial works. It emailed the resident to confirm this and said someone would contact him. There was a short delay in it making this contact. The procedure says this should have happened within 5 days, by 2 July 2025. However, the landlord did not contact the resident again until 8 July, after heasked for more information about the move.
30. The resident told the landlord he was concerned it had not considered his health needs. The landlord recorded the family’s needs and vulnerabilities after its initial call on 8 July 2025 in line with its decant and disturbance policy and its decant procedure. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it used this information to find suitable properties. It also asked the resident to tell the landlord if he needed any adaptations or accommodations during the process or in the temporary property. When the resident told the landlord he was concerned about the impact of moving twice, it explained how he could apply for a permanent move through its choice‑based lettings.
31. The landlord’s communication about the temporary move was not always timely or clear. After the landlord told the resident he would need to move, he contacted the landlord repeatedly to ask about the work and how long the family would need to be away, because the landlord had not given him this information. After its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord removed the resident from the temporary move list in September 2025. It said it could do the repairs while the family stayed in the property. It then wrote to the resident on 1 December 2025, and said the repairs could not be done safely or effectively while the property was occupied and offered a temporary move again. It later agreed to a permanent move, and the resident moved on 13 February 2026.
32. The impact of the landlord’s poor communication was significant. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to ask for updates and information. He asked for a copy of the landlord’s policy, made a formal complaint and asked his MP to intervene. He told the landlord the situation was stressful, and he was frustrated by the inconsistent information.
33. The landlord admitted its failings in its handling of the temporary move, but did not offer compensation for the delay or inconvenience. It also failed to provide the regular updates and liaison with the resident it had promised. It therefore failed to put things right.
34. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move. We have ordered the landlord to pay £350 compensation to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble it caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for awards where a failure adversely affected the resident.

35. The landlord’s asbestos guide says it will survey properties to identify where asbestos is present. It also says it will carry out an asbestos reassessment survey before any major improvement work, and that it will give residents advice if needed.
36. After the damp and mould survey in April 2025, the resident asked the landlord when it would carry out an asbestos survey. He understood this was needed before the remedial works could begin. The landlord did not respond to his request and when the resident asked for a copy of the previous asbestos survey carried out at the property, the landlord did not send this to him.
37. The resident chased the landlord several times and did not receive a copy of the previous asbestos reports until 19 August 2025, after he made a complaint and a freedom of information request. In his escalation request, he said when the landlord did not give him the earlier report, he assumed no survey had been carried out. He was so concerned that he arranged his own survey. He was also frustrated when a new check was not completed, as several contractors had told him it was needed before the damp and mould works could start.
38. The landlord apologised for its failings in the stage 2 complaint response, and confirmed it had now sent copies of the previous asbestos reports. It recognised the resident had made several requests and there had been a long delay in it providing the information. However, it did not offer compensation for the time and effort the resident spent chasing the matter, or for the distress and inconvenience it caused by its poor communication. It also did not tell the resident when the updated asbestos survey would take place. It therefore did not fully put things right.
39. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an asbestos survey.
40. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience its handling of his request for an asbestos survey caused the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings, but has not addressed the impact on the resident.

41. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
42. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and responded within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, in line with its policy.
43. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days and sent its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement, in line with its policy.
44. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

45. The landlord should learn from this complaint and consider how it communicates about temporary moves and repairs. It should make sure it provides prompt, accurate, and meaningful updates.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. Some of the landlord’s records were clear, particularly its notes of communication with the resident. However, some of its repair records were limited and did not show details of the inspections. The landlord should keep thorough records so it can manage issues effectively and provide a good service.

Communication

47. The landlord’s communication with the resident about repairs and the move to temporary accommodation was poor. It should improve its communication to reduce residents’ frustration, and the time and effort spent chasing updates.