Kingston upon Hull City Council (202537227)

Decision
Case ID	202537227
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Kingston upon Hull City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her 11-year-old son in flat within a block of 6 flats. She reported cracks and sloping floors inside her flat, which she believed were caused by subsidence. She raised concerns about safety of her property, particularly for her son. She also reported damp and mould in the property. She said the damp and mould had damaged her personal belongings and believed it had impacted the health of herself and her son.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Subsidence.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence.
   3. 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord responded to the reported damp and mould issues in line with its policies. Significant delays occurred in completing the damp and mould works. However, the landlord was not solely responsible for these overall delays. The landlord then incorrectly cancelled the damp and mould job, rather than seeking to gain access. This meant it took no further action for 4 months. The landlord has not recognised that its service failure contributed to this period of the delay.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence

6. Overall, the landlord delayed from October 2024 to November 2025 in completing the structural survey. It then inappropriately closed the structural engineer referral, which contributed to a further delay. The landlord recognised its failing caused a delay and apologised to the resident. However, an apology alone was not proportionate given the resident’s concerns about the safety of the building.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord followed its complaints process. It took the resident’s concerns seriously and issued its stage 1 response on time. Although the stage 2 response was 4 days late, the landlord kept the resident updated, and this short delay did not affect the outcome.

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 23 April 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £500, consisting of: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the reported subsidence.  £100 contribution for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the reported damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid	No later than 23 April 2026
	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident in writing in response to her reports of damaged belongings. The landlord must provide documentary evidence by the due date, confirming that it has issued this written response to the resident.	No later than 23 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 to 18 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord that: Damp and mould issues were outstanding since October 2024. She said the damp and mould had been cleaned and painted prior to this, but she later found it present under the wallpaper in her son’s room. She believed the landlord had not inspected the problem thoroughly at the time. She also believed the damp and mould had affected her son’s health, as he had been coughing at night. A visit from a structural engineer was outstanding since October 2024, relating to the cracks and sloping floors inside her property.   The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 and 18 July 2025.
28 July 2025	In its stage 1 response, the landlord upheld the complaint. It apologised that it had delayed in completing the initial structural survey. It provided details of its attempts to contact the resident to arrange the survey. It said the job was closed after no contact from the resident. The landlord also provided details of prearranged appointments relating to the damp and mould that the resident missed. It said it had rearranged damp and mould works for 31 July to 1 August 2025.
24 – 26 September 2025	The resident escalated the complaint because the structural survey and works remained outstanding. She listed a series of repairs and issues resulting from subsidence, and from the damp and mould. She said the cracks in the property had worsened. She described the effect that her living conditions were having on her existing mental health, and that her son was always coughing. She said she felt significant anxiety about the safety of the property. She said she was particularly concerned about her son because the bedroom floor was sloping. The resident also said that damp and mould were damaging her furniture and belongings.   The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 26 September 2025.
30 October 2025	In its stage 2 response, the landlord upheld the complaint because of its poor communication and delays in completing the structural survey. It said a structural inspection took place in the resident’s property on 25 September 2025. It also said the survey required inspections inside all properties within the block for completion, which were being completed that week. The landlord said a visit for 31 October 2025 was planned to identify any works not linked to the structural survey.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she wanted to live in a property that was in a fit state. She also said she would like compensation.

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	Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

8. We acknowledge the resident reported that delays in resolving the damp and mould affected her son’s health. She also told us she believed the case impacted on her existing mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments about the impact on her and her son’s health. However, it is not with our remit to determine causation, liability, or the impact on their health. Matters involving personal injury or damage to health fall outside the complaints process and are more appropriately considered through the courts or the landlord’s insurers. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of failings by the landlord.
9. Prior to 27 October 2025 the landlord did not publish a specific timescale for responding to damp and mould concerns. These issues were managed within its general priority repair system rather than within any set timeframe. However, we note since the introduction of Awaab’s Law, the landlord has introduced new damp and mould policies and procedures, effective from 27 October 2025.
10. Evidence shows the landlord completed damp and mould treatment to a bedroom in February 2022. There is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint about this work at the time.
11. During a routine visit from a tenancy officer on 10 October 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in her property. She believed the landlord had not fully inspected and resolved the previously treated damp and mould. It was appropriate that the landlord inspected the property on 31 October 2024. This was in line with its policy at the time for non-emergency repairs, which it aimed to complete within 28 calendar days. However, it was poor record keeping by the landlord that the record of that visit did not note the inspection findings. Later records said inadequate airflow and condensation had caused the issues.
12. The landlord followed its policy and promptly informed the resident of planned follow‑on works. The resident rearranged the appointment from 12 November to 21 November 2024. Plastering was also booked in for 21 January 2024. The landlord attended on all the planned dates but could not gain access, and calling cards were left for the resident to make contact. The landlord cancelled the job after no response.
13. It was not appropriate for the landlord to cancel the job because this was not in line with its policy. Its policy says repairs may be cancelled if appointments are missed without contact, except for damp and mould, where it should seek to enforce access. The landlord did not take further action and that was not appropriate.
14. On 20 May 2025, the resident chased the outstanding damp and mould issues. Although a letter was sent to the resident confirming the planned appointment for 5 June 2025, again, the landlord could not gain access. It left a card asking her to rebook.
15. The next appointment was booked for 18 July 2025, but the resident brought it forward to 11 July 2025. When the landlord attended on the rearranged date, it could not progress work because the wallpaper had not been removed. Appointments were then rebooked for 30 July to 1 August 2025. On 27 July 2025 the resident said she was not ready for the work to start.
16. Some damp and mould treatment was completed on 8 August 2025. This is the first evidence of treatment to the damp and mould since the initial report in October 2024. On 13 August 2025, the painter could not gain access and left a calling card. Further works were booked with the resident’s agreement for 20 and 21 August 2025, but contractors again could not gain access and left calling cards. On 12 September 2025 the resident cancelled the appointment planned for that afternoon. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 a couple of weeks later.
17. In its stage 2 response on 30 October 2025, the landlord confirmed a planned inspection for 31 October 2025. The records do not show if the visit took place or what the outcome was. Therefore, we cannot assess whether it completed the actions set out in its stage 2 response.
18. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings, which she raised in her escalation email on 24 September 2025. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider paying compensation where it is proven to have been negligent. If claims are over £500, the policy says its own insurers will consider the claim. The policy encourages residents to obtain their own home contents insurance to protect their personal possessions. It is not our role to determine liability or to award damages for the resident’s damaged items because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so.
19. Following the internal complaint process, on 26 November 2025, the tenancy officer checked for any outstanding damp and mould issues. It was appropriate that the landlord then followed its updated damp and mould policy by attending the property within 24 hours and completing treatment on the same day. The records also show that it attended again on 1 December 2025 to carry out works. To help alleviate the issues, it raised a job to install trickle vents and extractor fans.
20. To summarise the damp and mould issues, there were significant delays addressing the problems from the initial report in October 2024. We also considered the extent to which the resident’s actions may have contributed. The landlord responded to the reported issues promptly in its attempts, but progress was affected by several failed access attempts, rearranged appointments, and walls not prepared. These factors clearly contributed to the overall delay.
21. However, when the landlord incorrectly cancelled the job instead of seeking to enforce access, no further action took place for 4 months until the resident chased. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for this 4-month delay. To recognise the impact of the incorrect cancellation and its contribution to the delay in resolving the issues, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where service failings have caused distress and inconvenience.
22. We have also ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.

Complaint	Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence
Finding	Maladministration

23. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the building block.
24. During the visit on 10 October 2024, the resident told the tenancy officer she had concerns about subsidence. The tenancy officer contacted the relevant teams and described large cracks in the resident’s properties and other properties in the block, and said the issues were worsening. It was positive that a project surveyor attended on 31 October 2024 and immediately requested a structural engineer’s inspection. This was in line with its process, to complete a full structural report to consider habitable safety and to determine the next steps.
25. The landlord’s guidance does not set a specific timescale for when the structural engineer must complete the inspection or provide the report. Given the absence of an explicit timescale, it remains the landlord’s responsibility to act without delay where habitability or structural safety may be at risk. In the circumstances of this case, we would expect the landlord to have acted promptly by arranging the structural inspection within a reasonable period, taking into account that the assessment was necessary to confirm whether the resident could safely remain in the property.
26. Despite the structural inspection being requested on 31 October 2024, the landlord unreasonably delayed until March 2025 before attempting to contact the resident. Evidence shows the engineer was unsuccessful in contacting the resident, so it wrote to her on 8 April 2025 to request access. The letter also said it had left a voicemail asking the resident to return its call.
27. The landlord cancelled the structural survey referral when the resident did not respond. It was not appropriate for the landlord to cancel the job. Its repair guidance says jobs may be cancelled if there is no contact from the resident, but it also says this does not apply when the issue poses a health and safety concern. It states the landlord should seek to enforce access in such cases. Cancelling the job shows it did not consider the safety factors for the resident and other residents in the block who were also potentially affected by this matter.
28. In her complaint dated 10 July 2025, the resident chased the outstanding structural survey. She expressed safety concerns for the building and for herself and her son. In its stage 1 response, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for delay. Its response did not adequately consider the impact of the delay.
29. The landlord did not keep to the commitment in its stage 1 response to arrange a structural survey and update the resident. The resident was further inconvenienced by having to escalate this matter again in September 2025.
30. The full structural report of the building was finalised on 27 November 2025. The structural survey found the most likely cause of subsidence was the large surrounding trees and recommended substantial works to stop the movement of the block. The resident was reassured only at that point of the completed report, that the building was not in immediate danger. We understand the resident has since accepted the offer of a permanent from the landlord.
31. To summarise, the landlord took an unreasonable 5 months to attempt contact with the resident to arrange the structural inspection. We acknowledge that the resident also had an obligation to allow access so the works could progress. However, the landlord should not have cancelled the job after the 8 April 2025, without making further attempts to gain access. After the resident chased this again in her complaint, the landlord delayed arranging the survey for a second time. The year-long delay meant the issues remained outstanding for much longer than necessary. The situation could have progressed sooner if the landlord had acted promptly after 31 October 2024. The delay meant the resident did not receive reassurance about the safety of the building for an unreasonable period. She described this period as one in which she was constantly worried and anxious about the property and about herself and her son.
32. The landlord acknowledged its delay and apologised to the resident. However, this redress was not proportionate to the failings we identified. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £400 compensation. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where the failings adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

33. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
34. Upon receipt of the complaints, the landlord took the concerns seriously and discussed the complaints over the phone to gather further information. This demonstrates that it listened and took reasonable steps to resolve the damp and mould issues.
35. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within the required timescales.
36. The stage 2 response was issued 4 days later than the expected 20-working-day timescale. However, the evidence shows that the landlord called the resident 2 days before the response due date to explain it was awaiting some information about the subsidence issue. The records do not confirm whether the response date was formally extended, but they show the landlord kept the resident updated. We are satisfied this short delay did not affect the outcome and any impact on the resident would have been slight. The landlord acted in line with the Code by communicating appropriately. We do not consider that the short delay amounted to a service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord’s poor record keeping affected our ability to complete a robust investigation. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data, which could include better training, clearer guidance, or additional staff support. The KIM spotlight report provides eLearning and tools that landlords may find useful when strengthening its management information practices.

Communication and complaint handling

38. The landlord told us that, following its stage 2 investigation, it reviewed its methods of tracking complaint resolutions and follow on works to improve any issues. It was positive that the landlord had taken steps to improve future handling of cases by learning from its own failures. This shows a willingness to learn from the complaint and prevent similar issues arising in the future.