Warwick District Council (202442833)

Background

1. The property is a newly built 3‑bedroom semi‑detached house, completed by the developer and handed over to the landlord in April 2024. The resident entered into a shared ownership lease with the landlord on 10 September 2024 and lives at the property with her partner and three children. She reported that her children have serious medical conditions and that she also has significant lung problems. In September 2024, the resident complained that, when she arrived at the property on the day of completion, she found black mould and a leak causing water ingress from the ceiling. She later brought her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould in the property.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports a leak and damp and mould in the property.

5. The landlord did not carry out a pre completion inspection before the start of the resident’s lease, despite later acknowledging that one should have taken place. As a result, the property was not habitable on the day the lease began, which caused the resident and her children avoidable disruption and inconvenience. The impact was greater because of vulnerabilities within the household. The landlord did provide alternative accommodation while the matter was investigated but did not offer proportionate compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not act in line with its own policies or this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. Its complaint handling failures delayed the resolution of the resident’s concerns and caused avoidable time and trouble. The landlord did not demonstrate learning from the acknowledged shortcomings, and it did not offer compensation that reflected the impact of its complaint‑handling failures.

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 and why

7. We acknowledge that the presence of damp and mould in the property meant the resident and her family could not move in as planned, and the resident raised concerns about the distress and potential impact on her family’s health. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot determine the cause of any health issues, establish liability, or award damages. Such matters are usually considered through legal action or a personal injury claim.
8. This Service also does not typically consider complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. After the resident moved in, she reported new defect‑related repair issues to the landlord, and the landlord referred these to the developer. This Service has not seen evidence that these issues have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, so they have not been included in this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with how the landlord has handled these matters, she may choose to raise them as a formal complaint with the landlord.

What we found

9. The property was handed over from the developer to the landlord on or around 24 April 2024. From that date, it entered a 12‑month defect period during which the developer was responsible for addressing any reported defects, including issues arising from workmanship, quality, or design. Under the lease, responsibility for repairs would transfer to the resident once the defect period ended.
10. An internal landlord email dated 20 November 2024 stated that an inspection should have been carried out before the start of the lease. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also said it “would not have been fair to expect the complainant to move in until the defect had been repaired and mould removed.”
11. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord carried out a pre‑completion inspection before the start of the lease. Had an inspection taken place, it is likely the landlord would have identified the leak and the damp and mould and been able to refer these issues to the developer for resolution before the resident moved in. This would likely have enabled the resident and her family to move in without delay.
12. The resident’s lease began on 10 September 2024. On the same day, she reported a leak and damp and mould at the property, which meant she could not move in as planned. This was unexpected and caused understandable disappointment and distress.
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 11, 12 and 13 September 2024 about the issues at the property. The emails also show that she arranged to meet the developer on site on 12 September 2024 to discuss the remedial works required. She told the landlord that she had to drive long distances each day for school runs because she was unable to move into the property, and that this was difficult due to her health conditions.
14. The developer completed remedial works on 13 September 2024. The first full day the property was habitable and available to the resident was 14 September 2024, four days after the start of the lease.
15. During this period, the resident reported that she and her children had to undertake a substantial daily commute for school, amounting to nearly 100 miles a day. This resulted in additional costs and avoidable inconvenience. The evidence also shows that the resident invested significant time and effort communicating with both the landlord and the developer in order to progress matters, and she sought to minimise the impact on her children. Given the vulnerabilities reported, the delay had a elevated impact.
16. It is without dispute that the landlord failed to carry out adequate pre‑completion inspection, as acknowledged in its internal correspondence. This meant defects at the property were not identified before the start of the lease, causing avoidable impact on the resident and her family. The landlord also did not offer proportionate compensation for the inconvenience and the time and trouble caused. While the landlord and its developer worked to resolve the defects, the resulting adverse impacts were entirely avoidable and as a consequence the Ombudsman finds maladministration. An order has been made in respect of this.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2‑stage complaint process.
18. It is without dispute that the landlord did not meet the timeframes in its complaint policy or in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It took over 3 months from the resident’s initial complaint to issue its final response with delays at each stage. As a result, the resident waited longer than necessary for a resolution and had to invest avoidable time and trouble in seeking updates and a resolution. On 11 November 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had experienced “weeks of being ignored and running around in circles”.
19. The landlord’s stage 2 response gave it an opportunity to review and update its compensation offer made at stage 1. It was by then fully aware that it should have carried out a pre‑completion inspection. However, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the impact of the delay or the resident’s avoidable time and trouble. The compensation offered did also not clearly reflect the delays in its complaint handling.
20. In addition, the landlord’s final response did not demonstrate any significant learning from its acknowledged failures in the management of the property prior to the start of the lease and its complaint‑handling failures.
21. Cumulatively, these failings amount to service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made in respect of this.

Learning

22. This case featured failings in the landlord’s consideration of redress for acknowledged failings and delays. The landlord may wish to review the proportionality of compensation offered in cases such as this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should consider ensure that complaints are managed within the timescales set out in its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code, and that all complaint responses are dated. The landlord should review its process for pre‑completion visits to ensure that it remains consistently clear as to the condition of the property prior to any resident moving in.