Milton Keynes City Council (202527577)

Background

1. The resident first reported mould in her property from May 2024 onwards. On 12 November 2024, the landlord inspected the property for a leak. The resident informed the landlord of vulnerabilities within the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. Damp, mould, and roof repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in how the landlord handled damp, mould, and roof repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The roof repair took over 11 months, though some of the delays were outside the landlord’s control. The landlord did not manage the mould effectively before its stage 2 complaint response. After this, it took a proactive approach to the mould at the resident’s property.
5. The landlord did not meet its timescales when responding to the resident’s complaint at either stage. It did not identify this in either of its complaint responses.

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 did not investigate

6. The resident has said that the issue affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. Generally, we investigate issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because events that occurred after the date of the final response will not have been addressed via the landlord’s complaint process. However, in this case it is appropriate for us to consider events past this date of the final complaint response, because the repairs remained outstanding for over 2 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord attended the property to inspect the roof for a leak on 12 November 2024. This was 18 days after the resident first reported the issue on 25 October 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy says a routine repair will be completed within 28 days, which the landlord appropriately achieved.
9. The landlord understood from its inspection records that there were no obvious signs of a leak and it encouraged her to monitor the situation. However, the resident said she was told that the roof was compromised. This indicates a failure in record‑keeping and communication, as the inspection records, and the information provided to the resident did not clearly set out the landlord’s findings or the next steps.
10. Even if the landlord thought there were no obvious signs of a leak, it still recorded that the roof required monitoring. It was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on the resident to monitor a potential leak. The landlord should have retained responsibility for overseeing the issue and carrying out any further investigation as needed.
11. The evidence shows that the resident continued to report concerns about mould and requested further inspection of the roof. As the landlord had left the resident to observe any further signs of a leak, it should have responded promptly to these reports. The resident reported the ongoing issues on 8 December 2024. The landlord arranged a further inspection on 6 January 2025, 29 days later. This was 1 day outside the 28 day timescale for routine repairs. While this delay was minor, the landlord should have considered attending sooner given the approach it had taken in placing monitoring responsibility on the resident.
12. The January 2025 inspection identified that the resident’s roof required replacement. On 17 June 2025, the landlord told the resident that it would complete the repair “before the winter months”. This was the only timescale provided to the resident. The landlord completed the repair on 12 December 2025. This was over 11 months after the landlord confirmed the roof needed replacing. The landlord did not fulfil the commitment it made to the resident.
13. The landlord’s records show that it completed 2 mould washes before issuing its stage 2 response on 26 September 2025. The resident reported mould on 8 December 2024 and the landlord completed a mould wash on 6 January 2025, 29 calendar days later. The resident then reported mould on 3 April 2025 and the landlord completed a mould wash on 11 June 2025, 69 days calendar days later. These timeframes were outside the landlord’s repair timescales.
14. The landlord did not manage the situation appropriately. It relied on the resident to report further mould and was slow to respond when she did. The landlord was aware that the issue was ongoing and that there were vulnerabilities within the household. However, there is no evidence that it put a clear plan in place to manage the damp and mould or implemented any interim measures to mitigate the impact on the resident and her household.
15. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould survey to be carried out at the property. The landlord said the survey concluded that it was managing the situation satisfactorily. However, it has not provided the evidence of this. The resident has also disputed this. She has described the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s management of the situation. The evidence provided to us shows the landlord responding outside of its timescales to the resident’s reports of mould and not communicating a plan of managing it to her.
16. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord took a more proactive. It arranged a mould wash on 14 November 2025 and completed a further damp and mould survey on 19 November 2025. It also carried out an additional mould wash on 25 November 2025. This represented an improvement in the landlord’s approach, as it took active steps to address the ongoing issues at the property.
17. The resident requested a move to temporary accommodation as part of her stage 2 complaint escalation. By this point, the landlord had already assessed that temporary accommodation was not necessary, as the condition of the property did not meet the criteria set out within its decant policy. In the circumstances, the landlord’s decision to continue managing the mould within the property was reasonable. However, the landlord should have clearly communicated its decision and the reasons for it. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and provided clarity on how the issue would be addressed going forward.
18. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will communicate effectively with residents where there are unavoidable delays. However, the evidence shows periods where the resident’s communications went unanswered and where the landlord did not provide consistent updates. The update provided in relation to “before the winter months” did not include a specific timeframe. When the resident chased the landlord when winter was beginning, there is no evidence that the landlord responded with an updated timescale.
19. The resident raised issues with internal damage because of the damp and mould. The landlord referred the resident to its insurer in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s repairs policy says that a resident is responsible for internal decoration. Consequently, referring the resident to its insurer was appropriate in the circumstances.
20. Replacing a roof is a complex repair and can take time. Some of the delay was outside the landlord’s control, as it had to obtain a party wall agreement with a neighbouring property. However, the overall delay was still significant. During this period, the landlord did not communicate consistently with the resident and did not have a clear plan in place to manage the damp and mould. While the landlord later improved its approach and took more proactive steps, this did not fully address the earlier shortcomings.
21. The landlord offered £250 compensation at stage 2in recognition of the delays. This amount sits at the upper end of the landlord’s compensation scale for cases assessed as having a minor impact. For a moderate impact, the compensation policy says there will have been a significant impact over a longer period of time. The resident has described the distress and inconvenience caused to a vulnerable household. The landlord’s poor communication exacerbated this. Up to the stage 2, the repair had been outstanding for over 8 months. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the compensation as reflecting a moderate impact.
22. The landlord must pay the resident £525. This in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a moderate impact and our compensation guidance for maladministration. It recognises the impact on the resident, the landlord’s early failures responding to damp and mould, as well as the further delay in the roof repair after the stage 2.

23. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation a day after it was submitted. The landlord adhered to its policy timescales and the Code.
25. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 June 2025, 19 working days from its acknowledgement. It should have sent the response in 10 working days. It did not follow its policy or the Code.
26. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 September 2025, 21 working days from its acknowledgement. It should have sent the response in 20 working days. It did not follow its policy or the Code here either.
27. The landlord did not acknowledge either of the delays in its complaint responses. It therefore cannot show learning. The resident was caused time and trouble in chasing the complaint. This contributed to the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident due to the matter at large. It should apologise to the resident and, in line with our compensation guidance, pay £50 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s records were generally detailed and showed good practice. They largely captured the full repair journey. This level of detail supports transparency and is a positive from the landlord. However, the evidence would suggest that there are some missing communications with the resident. For instance, there is no record of the resident being informed that the repair work was about to begin. Keeping a complete record of communication supports transparency and accountability.

Communication

29. The landlord has not been able to evidence that it communicated appropriately with the resident during the handling of this matter. We encourage the landlord to make use of our Centre for Learning, particularly the resources on knowledge and information management, which provide guidance on effective record‑keeping and communication with residents.