Basildon Borough Council (202413105)

Decision
Case ID	202413105
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Basildon Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in a top floor flat. Her tenancy started on 5 February 2024. Soon afterwards, she reported a roof leak, associated internal repair issues, damp and mould, and a pest infestation. The resident complained on 19 March 2024 as she said the landlord had not addressed the issues. It issued its final complaint response on 31 May, in which it apologised for the delays and confirmed when it planned to complete the repairs.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. A roof leak causing internal repair issues, and damp and mould.
   2. A pest infestation.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak causing internal repair issues, and damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s:
      1. Response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
      2. Complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Leak, repairs, and damp and mould

5. The landlord took a total of 8 months to complete the repairs, and there was no clear reason for its delays. It did not keep the resident informed, nor did it consider any interim measures to address the mould.

Pest infestation

6. The landlord did not address the issue for at least 5 months following the resident’s reports. It did not keep her informed or explain its reasons for the time taken.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response outside its timeframe and did not update the resident, which added to her frustration given that this happened alongside the delays with its repairs.

 

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 member must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £725, broken down as follows: £450 for its handling of the roof leak, internal repairs, and damp and mould. £200 for its handling of the pest infestation. £75 for its complaint handling failures.   It must pay this directly to the applicant and provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
February 2024	The resident contacted the landlord throughout the first month of her tenancy to report a roof leak, which she said had damaged internal plasterwork and caused mould to develop. The resident also reported a squirrel infestation in the ceiling.
19 March 2024	The resident complained as she said the landlord had not resolved any of the issues, and the mould was spreading rapidly.
1 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it would fix the roof and inspect the internal damage on 3 May 2024. The resident then escalated her complaint as she said the roofers did not attend, and all other works remained outstanding.
31 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it gave a schedule of works to address the issues in full. It said it would complete all works between 28 June and 5 July.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The applicant referred her complaint to us as she said the landlord did not complete the works it promised in its stage 2 response. She said she wanted it to address the repairs and agree a partial rent refund.

 

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	Roof leak, repairs, and damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

 

8. The resident reported a roof leak on 13 February 2024, one week after her tenancy started. She said this had damaged the hallway storage cupboard ceiling and floor tiles. The landlord updated its records on 13 March to state that the cupboard ceiling was mouldy. It is unclear how or when it identified the mould, however this shows it was aware of this from at least that point. The resident explained she had not yet moved in due to the condition of the property.
9. There is no further evidence of action by the landlord and the resident complained on 19 March 2024. She described the smell from the mould as “eye watering” and said she still could not move in until it had fixed the issues. She asked it to agree a rent reduction on this basis.
10. The resident contacted the landlord again 3 days later to request an update on the works. It told her it could not chase its contractor because she had raised a complaint. Its response was not reasonable because her complaint should not have interfered with its provision of repair services. In addition, the evidence shows it had been making enquiries of the contractors anyway as part of its complaint investigations. Its inaccurate update therefore left the resident with the impression the repairs were on hold.
11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 May 2024. It said it would inspect the interior of the property and fix the roof on 3 May. It inspected the interior as planned, and confirmed repairs were needed to the cupboard and bathroom ceilings, and the cupboard floor tiles. The landlord noted that one of the ceilings was “bowed and covered in mould” but said the property was nevertheless still habitable so declined the resident’s request for a rent refund. The resident moved in during May 2024.
12. The landlord did not repair the roof leak on 3 May 2024 as promised. The resident escalated her complaint due to this and the ongoing mould and internal repair issues. She added that mould had developed on the bathroom ceiling, and a contractor had accidently made a hole when they inspected this, due to the level of moisture.
13. In its stage 2 response of 31 May 2024, the landlord said it did not attend to the roof as planned due to confusion about the required works. It said it would complete the full works to the roof, cupboard floor tiles, and ceilings between 28 June and 5 July. The landlord repeated its earlier decision not to offer a rent refund.
14. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 3 July 2024 to say it had made a mistake, as it needed to complete brickwork repairs before it could attend to the roof. The resident told us it then repaired the roof in late July. This was 5 months since her report, significantly outside the 28-day timeframe in its repairs policy.
15. The landlord completed the internal works between September and November 2024, which included replacing both the mould-damaged ceilings. It had previously explained it would attend to the roof before completing internal repairs. This was reasonable as it recognised the need to fix the root cause of the problem so any follow-on repairs were effective. However, the internal works still took between 2 and 4 months following the roof repair, and there is no evidence either explaining the time taken or showing updates to the resident saying what was happening.
16. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered any interim measures to mitigate the mould issue, pending the repairs. Our spotlight report recommends a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, which the landlord said it had adopted in its self-assessment against our report. However, its actions in this case do not reflect this. While it knew the resident did not move in when she first took up the tenancy, she had been living in the property for 5 months by the point when it completed the works. It did not address that the mould had developed to the extent that it needed to replace the ceilings.
17. The landlord did not communicate adequately with the resident, and its complaint responses did not explain the reason for the delays. It was aware of the leak from February 2024 and knew about the mould since at least March. However, there is no evidence that inspected either issue until several months later. It started action at that point, however, as noted above, there were then further delays and the evidence does not explain the reasons for this or show that it kept the resident updated.
18. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. However, its apology was brief, and it did not recognise the impact on her due to her initial belief that the property was unliveable, and then subsequently living with the mould issue for 5 months once she had moved in. We have ordered the landlord to pay £450 in compensation for these failures, in line with our remedies guidance where there have been significant delays and a clear effect on a resident.

 

Complaint	Pest infestation
Finding	Service failure

 

19. When the resident reported the leak, she also reported a squirrel infestation in the space between the ceiling and the roof. The landlord updated its records on 26 February 2024 to say it needed to make a hole in the ceiling to access the space. However, there is no evidence that it took any further action. In the resident’s complaint she said the noise from the squirrels was affecting her sleep.
20. When the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint, it found it did not have a pest control contractor in place. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would appoint a suitable contractor to address the problem. The resident raised the issue again in her escalation request.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would attend to the squirrels on 1 July 2024.  It did so and resolved the issue on 24 July following return visits. This was at least 5 months since the resident’s reports. The landlord’s tenant handbook states that pest infestations are generally a resident’s responsibility. However, the landlord accepted that, as scaffolding was in place, they were potentially accessing via this and the hole in the roof. It was therefore appropriate for it to accept responsibility.
22. However, the landlord did not keep the resident informed about its plans to address the issue, despite her explaining the effect the problem was having on her. As with the repairs, nothing in the evidence explains the landlord’s delayed action. We have ordered it to pay £200 in compensation in recognition of this, in line with our remedies guidance for failings of this scale and nature.

 

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

 

23. Our Complaint Handling Code of 2022 (the Code) set out that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time did not fully align with this, although it still ultimately said it would respond within a maximum of 15 working days. It has updated its policy since, in line with our current version of the Code.
24. The evidence shows the landlord had to chase its contractor for updates, which led to it issuing its stage 1 response 14 working days outside of its policy timescales. It apologised for the delay in its response and said this was because it had needed extra time to investigate. However, the landlord had not updated the resident to extend its response deadline. This added to her overall frustration as, during this time, it had also incorrectly told her it would not progress the repairs while her complaint was open.
25. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, in line with its policy and the Code. However, the delay with its stage 1 response impacted on the resident and we have ordered the landlord to pay £75 in recognition of this.

 

Learning

Record keeping and communication

26. The evidence provided indicates that many of the delays were due to communication issues between the landlord and its contractor. It may wish to consider whether it needs to review its joint communication and record keeping, to ensure it can quickly access the information it needs in the future.

Communication

27. In doing so, the landlord may also benefit from reviewing how it keeps residents informed when there are delays or other issues impacting on its ability to respond within its policy timeframes. This could help it to manage residents’ expectations and potentially avoid complaints about its service delivery in future.