Arun District Council (202411781)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411781

Arun District Council

28 March 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.             The complaint is about:

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs including damp and mould and poor condition of the exterior of the property.
  2. The landlord’s decision not to compensate for damage to her personal belongings.

Background

2.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a council. She moved into the property, a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, in April 1991. The resident has physical health conditions which limit her mobility, and a respiratory condition which affects her breathing. The landlord is aware of her vulnerabilities. The resident’s daughter managed the complaint on the resident’s behalf, both will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.

3.             The resident made a complaint on 25 March 2024 as flaking paint and crumbling brickwork on her external walls had led to damp and mould within her property. She told the landlord that she was vulnerable due to mobility issues and respiratory issues and she was concerned that the mould would worsen her health.

4.             The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and said it would provide a response on 10 April 2024. It contacted her on this day to say that it was sending a damp specialist to inspect the property and it would respond to the complaint on 24 April 2024.

5.             The damp survey took place on 11 April 2024 and found:

  1. The resident had Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) which meant mould removal was urgent.
  2. Damp in the lounge, former dining room, first floor landing, and both upstairs bedrooms.
  3. It recommended works including:
    1. Stripping poor paintwork, repointing and adding weather shield to the front and side walls.
    2. Removal of the chimney stack to below roof level and waterproofing.
    3. Gutter clearance.
    4. Stripping wallpaper in the internal affected areas to the lounge and front bedroom (walls and window reveals), preparing and PVA coating the walls, then applying anti-mould paint.

6.             The resident asked the landlord on 18 April 2024 for an update on when it would remove the mould and begin the wider works. She said she had paid to move her belongings on the understanding that the works would begin within 7 days of the survey.

7.             On 16 May 2024 the landlord provided a stage 1 response and apologised for the delay in response.

  1. It upheld the complaint regarding its response to external paintwork and confirmed and it would send a contractor on 24 May 2024 to compile a quote for the repairs.
  2. It also partially upheld the complaint regarding damp and mould as it said that although it acknowledged there was mould in the property it could not locate any previous reports from the resident.
  3. It planned to complete a mould wash but the resident told it that she had done it.
  4. It offered £175 compensation for delay, distress and inconvenience.

8.             The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 20 May 2024. She said that the compensation was insufficient as clothes and priceless items in the loft were destroyed by damp. She also felt that it would cost more than the offered compensation to redecorate her home and was not confident that the landlord would complete the repairs due to previous experiences. The landlord acknowledged this request the following day.

9.             On 26 May 2024 the landlord and resident discussed her complaint over the phone. The landlord asked for photographic proof of damaged belongings and proof of the cost. It also said that it would not reimburse for any damaged belongings in the loft as its tenancy agreements stated that residents could not use the loft for storage. The landlord also said that it would consider whether it could support the resident by initiating a management move to a smaller, single level property.

10.        The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 June 2024 upholding her complaint. It increased the level of compensation to £500 in recognition of the level of disrepair and the level of required redecoration. Internal records state that all external works were completed by 10 September 2024 but the resident told this Service as recently as November 2024 that the work was not complete.

11.        The landlord confirmed to us on 18 March 2025 that it had resolved the damp and mould to the resident’s satisfaction but did not say what date it completed the work. The resident has not confirmed this, but she has informed us that she remains unhappy with the landlord’s overall handling of the damp and mould and the level of compensation. She has asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs including damp and mould and poor condition of the exterior of the property

12.        The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and all other repairs within 20 working days. The resident initially reported the mould in her complaint, and the landlord attended 12 working days later to complete the damp survey. The survey identified that the damp and mould was extensive, a risk to health, and the resident’s health made her more vulnerable. The survey did not put a timescale on how quickly the mould should be removed however in subsequent internal communication the surveyor said that he believed 7 working days was appropriate.

13.        The landlord provided us with its repair records and there is no evidence of any reports of mould prior to 2024. However, the paintwork and external wall condition had not been repaired under the cyclical repair scheme and the damp survey found that this contributed to the mould. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report for the landlord to consider how it monitors cyclical works to ensure issues do not lead to disrepair.

14.        Following the damp survey, internal notes indicate that the landlord considered the possibility of a management move and a decant. It received a report from an occupational therapist who stated that the property was no longer suitable for the resident due to her health needs. It found a 1-bedroom ground floor property however it was unsuitable as there was no secure area for the resident’s pet. It is positive that the landlord took the report seriously and was receptive to the prospect of a management move. It also supported the resident onto the local social housing bidding list.

15.        The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore landlords must consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. 

16.        The resident’s vulnerabilities were well documented and flagged during the damp survey which noted that her respiratory condition would have put her at more risk from mould exposure. It is understandable that the situation was very distressing for both the resident and her daughter. The resident and the surveyors accounts of the survey differ, so the Ombudsman cannot determine what timescale the surveyor gave for works to start.

17.        It was approximately 5 months between the damp survey and completion of works. We have not been informed of what date the work took place, and whether it completed the full scope of works as identified in the survey. Much of the work identified was structural and chimney repairs required a party wall agreement. It is understandable that this could not be completed within 20 days but 5 months was excessive.

18.        During the complaints process it offered compensation as a contribution towards redecoration costs. The compensation policy states that it may award payments of up to £500 where there is severe impact on a resident which can be directly attributed to the landlord’s actions. It made this offer at the end of the internal complaints process but this did not account for the additional 3 months that passed before the repairs were completed. It should have reviewed its offer of compensation once the works were completed and considered any ongoing inconvenience and distress for the resident.

19.        Records indicate that the landlord did not remove the mould internally as the resident had done it. The landlord should have considered creating a follow up schedule while repairs were scheduled to keep on top of any new growth and lessen the strain on the resident and her daughter.

20.        The resident consistently asked the landlord for a schedule of works which was not provided. It should have provided this to reassure the resident that it would complete all work raised on the survey. The resident had already indicated that she was not confident that the landlord would act, and this was compounded by the lack of transparency around what work it would complete. This caused additional frustration and distress for the resident, rather than reassurance that it would remedy the disrepair in her home. 

21.        We recognise that the situation was very distressing for the resident and her daughter. She had informed the landlord that she was living downstairs and could not access the first floor. As the mould affected the ground floor it is clear from the evidence that it affected the resident’s enjoyment and comfort on that floor.

22.        In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to the complaint. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any failures and the steps it has taken to offer redress and learn from the complaint can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.

23.        Based on the evidence, the landlord was unaware of the presence of the damp and mould before the complaint was made. After the complaint it arranged a damp survey within the policy timescale and took wider remedial action to fix the underlying cause. It considered decanting the resident and offered support with finding a more appropriate property. It also offered an amount of compensation which was consistent with its policy based on the progress it had made at the time.

24.        Unfortunately, the landlord did not provide the resident with the requested schedule of works which added to her frustration and distress. Its records do not accurately reflect what work it completed or when but based on the repair records we estimate it took 5 months. The landlord should have completed the repairs more quickly given the risk that the mould posed to the resident given her vulnerabilities. It should also have reviewed compensation again once it completed the repairs to account for any additional delays. The resident had reported that the external paintwork and brickwork was in disrepair in 2021 and the landlord did not take any action. While at the time it may not have needed repairs, the landlord should have been monitoring the wall to ensure it did not degrade further.  

25.        While the landlord took positive actions in this case, it was not enough to completely offset the negative impact on the resident. For this reason, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs including damp and mould, and poor condition of external brickwork.

The landlord’s decision not to compensate for damage to her personal belongings

26.        The tenant’s handbook from 2010 advised against using lofts for storage due to potential damage from damp. It says that it will not accept liability for any damaged goods stored in the loft against its advice. This is consistent with the advice it gave to the resident during the complaints process although its statement that this advice was in the tenancy agreement rather than the handbook confused matters.

27.        The landlord requested proof of the cost and condition of damaged belongings which was a reasonable request. It is also understandable that the resident did not have this to hand as the belongings were stored in an area she could not access and not used regularly. The landlord indicated that if the resident provided receipt, it would consider some measure of redress. This was positive, and above the requirements of its compensation policy.

28.        The tenant handbook tells residents to take out contents cover to safeguard their belongings. There is no evidence that the landlord confirmed whether the resident had cover in place or advised her to contact her insurance provider. It should have told her that this was an option available to her which may have provided a contribution towards redecoration and personal belongings.

29.        However, the landlord was compliant with the tenancy handbook in its decision not to offer any reimbursement for belongings. There was no maladministration in this decision.

Determination

30.        In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs including damp and mould and poor condition of the exterior of the property.

31.        In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to compensate for damage to her personal belongings.

Orders

32.        Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident:

  1. £100 for distress, time, trouble and inconvenience between the stage 2 response on 17 June 2024 and 10 September 2024 (the completion date for works based on the landlord’s records). Proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman.
  2. £500 as offered during the internal complaints process if it has not already been paid. It must provide proof of payment to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

33.        The landlord should review its approach to cyclical works. It should ensure that it regularly checks any properties on the waiting list to confirm that any structural issues haven’t worsened.

34.        The landlord should speak with the resident to confirm whether she still wishes to move to a more suitable property. It should ensure she is aware of her options and provide appropriate support.