Harlow District Council (202420958)

Decision
Case ID	202420958
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Harlow District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident asked the landlord to review her housing banding priority on medical grounds. She complained to the landlord about its assessment of her medical priority and its handling of damp and mould in the property. She disagreed with the works proposed by the landlord and said they would not resolve the issue. She also said the landlord had not taken the impact of damp and mould on her son, who had asthma and recurrent chest infections, seriously. The resident moved out of the property in July 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to review her housing banding.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to review her housing banding is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Banding

7. This relates to the council’s housing allocations function, specifically the review of the resident’s medical banding. This is not a matter we have jurisdiction to investigate.

Damp and mould

8. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould and arranged appropriate inspections to understand the cause. However, it did not complete recommended works within its 25 working day timescales  and did not manage the works it committed to in a timely or coordinated way. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability when prioritising repairs. Although the landlord apologised for poor communication and mixed messaging, this did not remedy the impact of the delays, which caused prolonged distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty for the resident.

Complaints handling

9. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code. Although there was no evidence of a formal stage 2 acknowledgement, the landlord issued its response within its overall target timescale, and this resulted in no overall detriment to the resident.

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 29 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of 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.	No later than 29 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 May 2024	The resident complained that the landlord failed to resolve longstanding damp and mould in the property despite repeated reports. She said the damp and mould affected the bedroom used by her young child with asthma and had caused damage to her belongings. She also said that an independent surveyor had advised that the property required significant insulation works. However, the landlord had proposed other measures, including loft insulation and renewing the seal on the windows, which the resident did not consider would resolve the issue. She wanted the landlord to carry out the works recommended by the surveyor to effectively address the damp and mould.
29 May 2024	In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it reviewed a damp survey dated 11 April 2024 and medical information on 22 May 2024, which found no penetrative damp but identified condensation related mould. The landlord said it had completed damp treatment works, raised further works to clear gutters, renew external sealant, and carry out planned loft insulation to reduce the risk of mould. It said the property did not require extensive works and that cavity wall insulation was not suitable. It confirmed the resident’s housing banding remained at Band 3 and did not uphold the complaint.
31 May 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, repeating her original complaint and saying that the landlord continued to rely on a survey the resident did not accept. She disputed the survey findings and said an independent inspection on 29 April 2024 identified more extensive works as necessary.
27 June 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it had considered the complaint about housing banding through a separate complaint, and it did not consider this issue further as part of this complaint. In relation to damp and mould, the landlord said it reviewed the resident’s complaint correspondence, 2 surveys carried out on 9 April 2024 and 29 April 2024, and a recorded call from 8 May 2024. The landlord said the surveys identified condensation related mould and recommended remedial works, rather than full property renewal. It said it arranged mould treatment, window resealing and gutter clearance, and planned a review of ventilation before installing loft insulation. The landlord said it did not agree that the property required extensive structural works, or that the works proposed would worsen the issue. It acknowledged that comments made directly to the resident by surveyors and staff caused confusion and apologised for this. The landlord partially upheld the complaint on this basis. It recommended that the resident pursue any claim for damaged belongings separately through its insurance process.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould and the assessment of her banding. She said the landlord failed to address the root cause, despite knowing the impact on her child’s asthma. She said the conditions became uninhabitable and that she was forced to leave the property. She sought a finding of maladministration or service failure, acknowledgement of the health impact on her family, and financial 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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to review her medical banding.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

10. We can only investigate complaints where a council is acting as a landlord under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. The council was not acting in this capacity because it was carrying out a review of the resident’s medical banding as part of its housing allocations function. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the council’s decision‑making in relation to the resident’s medical banding for rehousing. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

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

What we have not investigated

11. The resident reported mould to the landlord in November 2022, and the landlord carried out an inspection on 22 December 2022. This identified condensation‑related damp and mould. The resident also reported at that time that her child had experienced recurrent chest infections. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process until 27 June 2024. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from January 2024, which the landlord addressed in both stages of the complaint process.
12. The resident told us that the damp and mould within the property impacted her and her children’s health, including her son’s asthma. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord took appropriate account of the information available to it when managing repairs

What we have considered

13. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days and standard repairs within 25 working days. The policy also says that where repair issues affect residents with health conditions or vulnerabilities, the landlord will recognise the need for appropriate consideration and prioritisation.
14. On 24 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said the damp and mould had continued despite earlier measures, and that her child had been diagnosed with asthma in December 2023. We have not seen evidence of substantive action taken by the landlord following this contact. The resident made a further repair report of damp and mould on 2 April 2024, raising concerns about the continued presence of mould, damage to belongings, and the impact on her son’s breathing.
15. The landlord arranged a damp survey on 9 April 2024. This was a prompt response to the resident’s report on 2 April 2024. The survey did not identify penetrative damp. However, it identified small areas of condensation‑related mould in both bedrooms and the lounge. It recommended mould treatment, renewal of defective sealant, clearance of rear gutters, and further investigation into insulation.
16. The landlord arranged an insulation inspection on 29 April 2024, which confirmed that cavity wall insulation was not suitable due to the timber‑framed construction of the property. The inspection identified ventilation as requiring attention and recommended that the landlord address ventilation before it installed loft insulation, as installing insulation without addressing ventilation could worsen condensation.
17. The landlord instructed another contractor to carry out a ventilation inspection on 14 May 2024. This identified insufficient extraction rates, inadequate door undercuts, the absence of a kitchen extractor fan, issues with the existing ventilation system, and a hole in the roof. The inspection also noted that installing loft insulation without addressing ventilation and cold wall surfaces could exacerbate condensation and mould. The resident expressed concern that loft insulation alone would not resolve the problem and could make it worse.
18. The resident raised concerns about advice she was given during inspections. In her complaint of 14 May 2024, she said a surveyor told her not to dry clothes indoors, despite living in a 1st floor flat. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould makes clear that landlords should avoid attributing damp and mould to normal household activities, such as drying clothes, particularly where residents have limited alternatives. While it is reasonable for landlords to provide general advice on reducing moisture, this should not place responsibility on the resident or detract from the landlord’s obligation to address underlying defects.
19. The landlord’s surveyor recommended mould treatment on 9 April 2024. However, the landlord’s records show that it did not dispatch the mould treatment order to its contractor until 21 May 2024, which was 29 days after the recommendation. This exceeded the landlord’s standard repair timescale of 25 working days. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered whether the mould treatment should have been prioritised in light of the resident’s reported vulnerability, including her child’s asthma. This was not consistent with the landlord’s policy commitment to recognise and prioritise vulnerabilities.
20. By the time of the landlord’s final complaint response on 27 June 2024, key remedial works remained outstanding. The landlord acknowledged that surveyors and operatives had provided inconsistent comments directly to the resident about the work needed to address the mould. It apologised for the confusion caused by mixed messaging. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the likely distress caused by its communication. However, while the apology addressed communication issues, it did not remedy the likely impact caused by the underlying delay in delivering remedial works. At that point, the landlord had not completed works identified by the surveyor on 9 April 2024 or ventilation improvements, nor have we seen evidence that it had reassessed priorities in light of the resident’s concerns about her son.
21. We have also considered how the landlord managed the commitments it made in its final response. Following inspections in May 2024, the landlord identified the presence of asbestos within the loft space. The landlord recorded that it completed asbestos removal works in May 2024, and the resident had to clear her possessions from the loft to allow the loft insulation works to proceed. However, the landlord did not complete the loft insulation works until 10 February 2025. This was a significant delay between the removal of asbestos, and the completion of the insulation works. We have not seen evidence that the landlord clearly explained the reasons for this delay to the resident. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns about mould and the reported vulnerability within the household, this prolonged delay was likely to have caused distress, inconvenience and uncertainty.
22. The landlord’s repair records show that it did not complete mould treatment works it raised on 17 April 2024 until 9 October 2024, more than 5 months after the original target completion date of 16 May 2024. While the landlord recorded some no‑access appointments and rearrangements, these do not fully explain the overall time taken. Internal correspondence provided by the landlord suggests that at points the landlord considered the works complete on 22 May 2024, despite repair records showing the same order continuing for several months. We have not seen clear evidence explaining what works it completed at each stage or why the repair status changed. This shows a lack of effective oversight and coordination and made it difficult to assess whether the landlord handled the repairs appropriately.
23. Additionally, the landlord did not complete ventilation works recommended by the contactor that the landlord appointed on 14 May 2024 until 31 July 2024. Given that the contactor identified ventilation as a key factor in managing condensation‑related damp, this delay was significant.
24. The landlord’s surveyor recommended clearance of the rear gutters as part of the damp survey on 9 April 2024. In her escalation of 31 May 2024, the resident said that her neighbour had already cleared the gutters due to flooding at her doorstep, although it is unclear from the evidence when this took place or whether it addressed the issue identified by the surveyor. The landlord later recorded clearing the gutters on 17 September 2024 as part of roof and guttering works. However, the landlord’s records do not clearly explain whether it intended for this work to address the original recommendation from April 2024, or in response to the resident’s later reports of water ingress she made on 12 September 2024. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess whether the landlord acted on the original recommendation within its repair timescales. Clear and accurate record‑keeping is important to show that the landlord managed reported damp‑related defects appropriately.
25. The resident also reported damage to her personal belongings caused by damp and mould. In its final response, the landlord gave the resident the details of its insurance team. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide details of its own insurance process so the resident could consider whether to make a claim for its insurance team to investigate. We do not have jurisdiction over decisions made by insurers and cannot determine liability for damage to possessions.
26. Overall, the landlord arranged appropriate inspections and obtained relevant technical advice, and it was entitled to decide which remedial works were appropriate. However, it did not deliver works within its published repair timescales, did not adequately consider the resident’s reported vulnerability when prioritising repairs, and did not manage the commitments it made in the final response in a timely or coordinated way.
27. The landlord’s apology in its final response of 27 June 2024 appropriately acknowledged poor communication and mixed messaging. However, the landlord did not fully recognise its wider service failures or address the detriment caused by delays, uncertainty and poor coordination of works. While it attempted to put things right through repairs, these actions did not remedy the impact on the resident. There was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and although the landlord made some attempt to put things right, it did not adequately acknowledge its failings or provide proportionate redress. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

28. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
29. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within its stated timescales of 5 and 10 working days respectively. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
30. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 19 working days, which was within its 20-working day timescale and in line with the Code. The landlord has not provided evidence that it sent a formal stage 2 acknowledgment. However, as there was no overall delay in its response times, this mitigated any detriment caused to the resident.

Learning

31. The landlord’s introduction of a damp procedure in September 2024 was a positive step and shows that the landlord has taken the specific risks associated with damp and mould seriously at an organisational level. This supports more consistent investigation, decision‑making, and oversight in future cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s repair records lacked detail. This made it difficult to understand what action the landlord was taking in response to identified risks and whether it managed repairs within policy timescales. Robust record keeping is essential to ensure effective oversight of damp and mould cases and to evidence timely responses.

Communication

33. The landlord acknowledged that surveyors and operatives provided inconsistent or unhelpful advice directly to the resident, which caused confusion and undermined confidence in the landlord’s proposed remedies. Clear, coordinated communication is particularly important in damp and mould cases, where residents may be anxious about health impacts.