Babergh District Council (202430826)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430826

Babergh District Council

16 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about a new lock in the front door of the property.
2. Request for a fence to be installed in the front garden.
3. Reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a 3-bedroom house.
The resident and his wife are both registered disabled. The resident’s wife suffered a stroke which resulted in her experiencing significant cognitive impairment including memory loss. The landlord is aware of these vulnerabilities.
The resident has referred to his neighbour as part of this complaint. For the purpose of this report, they will be referred to as ‘neighbour A’.
Between June 2021 and July 2021, the resident asked the landlord for permission to install a fence in the front garden of the property. He said this was because neighbour A’s dog had been intimidating towards his wife, and she did not feel safe. The landlord said the resident could install the fence on the conditions that:
1. The fence was to be installed along the boundary line in the photo it provided the resident.
2. The fence must not exceed 1 meter in height.
3. The landlord would not be responsible for any costs for the work to install the fence.
In January 2024 the landlord carried out a healthy homes assessment of the resident’s property. This assessment recommended for the landlord to carry out repairs to the damaged pointing in the brickwork. It also recommended the landlord repair the kitchen window, and the extractor fans within the property.
In April 2024 the landlord scheduled an appointment to inspect the damp and mould within the resident’s property. The resident told the landlord it had not carried out any of the recommended works from its inspection in January 2024.
In May 2024 the resident asked the landlord for permission to install a fence in his front garden along the boundary of neighbour A’s property.
In July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to revert the front door lock at the property to the old mechanism which needed a key to open it from the outside. The resident said this was because his wife had suffered a stroke, and subsequent memory loss. The resident was concerned about his wife’s safety as she would not be able to remember locking the front door.
On 9 July 2024 the resident submitted a complaint about the landlord not responding to his concerns about the above repairs. The resident said he made a number of requests for a manager at the landlord to respond to him.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 September 2024. The landlord said its operative who fitted the new lock in the front door had spoken to the resident’s wife and she had raised no concerns. The landlord said it was not possible to fit the old-style spindle lock, and the resident would have to lock the door from the outside when leaving the property.
The landlord said the resident could install the fence in the front garden of the property, as long as it was installed in line with the conditions it previously issued to the resident in 2021. The landlord asked the resident to remove the wallpaper in the bathroom and its contractor would then carry out an inspection of the damp and mould.
On 12 September 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaints. The resident repeated his concerns about his wife’s safety. The resident also asked the landlord to:
1. Repair the front door which he said was letting in a draught because it had not been fitted correctly.
2. Install a fence along the boundary of the front garden with neighbour A’s property because their dog had attacked his wife.
3. Address the damp and mould, and the cracks in the walls of the bathroom.
In October 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property. It raised a number of repairs following this.
On 7 November 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord agreed to fit a new lock that suited the resident’s family’s needs. It said it would refit the front door at the same time. The landlord apologised for how a member of its staff had initially communicated with the resident about this request.
The landlord said it would replace the windows and doors and install external wall insulation or UPVC cladding at the property, to bring it up to specification. The landlord said this would be completed in April 2025, as part of its planned programme of works for that financial year.
The landlord said it would not install a fence along the boundary of the resident’s front garden. It said this was because there was already an established hedge in place.
The landlord apologised it had not completed the damp and mould survey of the resident’s property. It agreed to carry out plastering around the bathroom window.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaints. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman stating the landlord was not applying its rules about installing fences fairly for all its residents. He has said the landlord had installed fences for a number of his neighbours but would not do this for him.
The resident has said the landlord has scheduled to install the new windows, front door, and the cladding to his property on 14 July 2025. The resident said he was unhappy with how long the landlord has taken to carry out these works. He was also concerned the landlord has not addressed the underlying problem of the damp and mould within his property.
The resident is seeking compensation which takes into consideration the damage caused by the damp and mould to his carpets, his increased energy bills, and for distress and inconvenience caused to him. He would also like the landlord to:
1. Treat the damp and mould within the property.
2. Carry out all of the outstanding repairs.
3. Install a fence in his front garden along the boundary of neighbour A.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident said:
1. He raised a stage 1 complaint 2 months ago about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff in its handling of the installation of his windows during communication in April 2025.
2. The resident’s carpets within the property have black mould on them.
We have not seen any evidence the resident communicated with the landlord directly about damage to his personal belongings, including carpets. The resident may be able to make a liability claim if he believes the damage to his carpets, or on any other item of his belongings has happened due to the landlord’s negligence in handling these repairs. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord, and we would therefore not comment on its insurer or the likely outcome of an insurance claim if one is made. We will make a recommendation for the landlord to share the details of its insurer or assess the resident’s claim internally and provides a response.

The resident can also contact the landlord about these more recent matters if he wishes to pursue these separate incidents as a complaint. This is because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to these further complaints through its complaints process before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. Once the resident has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, he may be able to refer these further matters to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his further complaints.
Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident has said he has had issues with damp and mould within his property since 2009. We have also seen evidence the resident has been requesting permission to install a fence in his front garden since 2021. We acknowledge these are longstanding issues. However, as events become historic it can become more difficult for the landlord or the Ombudsman to assess what happened. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, we have considered the landlord’s handling of these matters between 9 January 2024 which is when the landlord carried out its original inspection of the damp and mould within the resident’s property, to the landlord’s final complaint response on 7 November 2023.
As part of his complaint, the resident has said that his wife’s health had been affected by the landlord’s handling of the complaints that form part of this report. We acknowledge what the resident has said. It is also widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident or his wife. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine.
We have considered the general risk posed by damp and mould as well as any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his wife’s health.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for window glass, sills, frames, and doors in its properties. It is also responsible for investigating reports of damp and mould and undertaking reasonable works to improve the performance of the property where possible.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repairs into emergency, urgent, routine, planned, and out of hours. It describes a responsive repair as remedial works to broken, damaged or defective parts of the fabric of the building. The landlord describes fitting windows and doors as a planned repair which it states it will complete within 90 working days.
The landlord’s fencing policy states it will not provide fences or gates to separate front and rear gardens. The landlord will not erect fences to keep pets, animals, or persons in or out of gardens. Where an existing boundary hedge adequately marks a boundary, it will not be replaced by a fence, except in exceptional circumstances and only if it is in the landlord’s interest to do so. Residents must submit a tenant alteration application to request installing a fence, and this must be installed at the resident’s full cost. A fence in the front garden must not be in excess of 1 meter high.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will keep residents informed of the outcome of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues, and timetabling of any works. It will also carry out mould treatments to remove mould growth where this has been caused by a property defect or deficiency.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a complaint, at either stage.

The resident’s concerns about the new lock in the front door of the property

On 9 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to revert the lock to the front door of the property to the old-style lock. The resident explained this was because of his wife’s significant cognitive impairment following her stroke. He raised a complaint about this the same day.
The landlord visited the property to assess the lock on 19 July 2024. Then in its follow up communication on 1 August 2023, the landlord explained it would not refit the old-style lock due to them being renowned for breaking down and urged the resident not to change it himself. The landlord said, “Obviously this will involve locking the door behind you, but I don’t feel that is too big of an ask.” The landlord’s use of language was not appropriate and demonstrated that it had not taken into consideration the resident’s concerns about his wife’s medical conditions. We acknowledge this caused the resident significant distress.
The landlord should have taken into consideration the resident’s concerns about the safety of his wife, as well as her ill health in its initial communication with him, when deciding whether it could make reasonable adjustments in respect of the lock to the front door.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 7 November 2024, it apologised for its use of language. The landlord said it had spoken to its member of staff who made the comment, about the landlord’s responsibility in demonstrating equality awareness when communicating with residents. It was positive the landlord investigated this comment, apologised, and provided a learning opportunity for its member of staff in relation to considering equality, as well as reasonable adjustments.
We encourage landlords to use their complaints process to seek opportunities to learn so they can improve their service to residents.
The landlord agreed to replace the lock on the front door with a lock that suited the resident’s family’s needs. The lock was replaced on 26 November 2024. This was 13 working days after the landlord agreed to replace the lock. This was reasonable as we would consider this to be a routine repair which the landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete within 20 working days. It was appropriate for the landlord to replace the lock in view of the resident’s concerns about his wife, but it should have done so sooner when he first raised the issue.
There is evidence of a failing, as mentioned above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the new lock. However, we consider the landlord’s apology in its final response, and that it changed the lock to a more suitable mechanism for the resident and his family, to be a reasonable and proportionate response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the lock in the front door of the property.

The resident’s request for a fence to be installed in the front garden

On 9 May 2024 the resident submitted a request to install a fence in his front garden. The landlord raised an inspection to review this request the same day. We have not been provided with any evidence the landlord responded to the resident between 9 May 2024 and 31 July 2024. We would expect landlords to respond to such applications within 20 working days. This is evidence of poor communication.
We have seen evidence the resident chased the landlord for it to respond to his request and provide a copy of its fencing policy within that time. We acknowledge this caused inconvenience to the resident who was seeking to install a fence in the front garden of his property, following an incident with neighbour A’s dog.
On 1 August 2024 the landlord provided the resident with its previous letter from 2021, in which it granted him permission to install a fence in the front garden of the property. The landlord said he could install the fence, as long as he paid for it and it was not in excess of 1 meter in height.
This was a reasonable response as this was in line with the landlord’s fencing policy which states it will consider resident’s request to install a fence through its tenant alteration application. The landlord was not obliged to pay for the fence, even though the resident’s wife had been attacked by the neighbour’s dog as the landlord’s fencing policy says it will not pay for fencing under such circumstances.
It was appropriate the landlord provided the resident with its fencing policy in its stage 1 complaint response on 9 September 2024. This was because the resident had previously asked for a copy of this to be sent to him.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, it encouraged the resident to report the incident where he said that neighbour A’s dog had bitten his wife, to the police. This was appropriate advice because the police are the lead agency on criminal matters, including dog bites. The police also have different powers to the landlord when investigating these types of incidents.
The landlord also advised the resident how he could report the incident as antisocial behaviour (ASB). The landlord said it would investigate the incident in line with its ASB procedure. This was appropriate because where the resident was having issues with neighbour A’s dog, this could be considered and would be investigated as ASB by the landlord. If the resident is still having issues with neighbour A’s dog, he can make an ASB report to the landlord. The landlord would then be expected to investigate the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy and procedures.
We acknowledge the resident has said the landlord has installed a number of his neighbours’ fences which he states contradicts the landlord’s fencing policy, and that he has been treated differently.
We have seen communication in which the landlord has responded to the resident about his concerns, stating it was unable to provide details relating to individual neighbour’s circumstances, due to general data protection regulation (GDPR). This was a reasonable response because the landlord must carry out its functions in line with the Data Protection Act 2018.
This means it would be unable to comment on or provide details relating to the resident’s neighbour’s applications to install fences in their front gardens. There may be a variety of legitimate reasons why the landlord installed fencing for neighbouring properties and this in itself does not show that the landlord is treating the resident unfairly. Our investigation has focused on whether the landlord met its obligations towards the resident regarding the fencing, in line with its policy and we would not comment on other residents’ fences as part of this, due to confidentiality.
The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about his request to install a fence in his front garden. This is due to its initial delay in communicating with the resident about his request.
The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and its action to put things right did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property

On 9 January 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. During this inspection it raised a number of repairs as referred to above.

It is accepted the landlord carried out the pointing of the brickwork and resealed the gap in the kitchen window in the summer of 2024. We have not been given a more accurate date. However, it should not have taken the landlord around 6 months to carry out these works. The landlord should have responded to this in line with its repairs policy, as a routine repair.
It is also accepted the landlord carried out the repair to the extractor fan in the bathroom during its installation of the new wet room at the property. We have not been provided with the date the wet room was installed. We understand the extractor fan in the kitchen has not been addressed. We will make an order for the landlord to carry out the works to the extractor fan in the kitchen in line with its healthy homes assessment report dated 9 January 2025.
The landlord’s healthy homes assessment report states the landlord offered to clean and treat the damp and mould in the resident’s property as part of its ‘preventative shielding service’. The landlord said the resident refused its service. We are not commenting on the reasons the resident refused this. However, it was reasonable the landlord offered this service to the resident as it can be effective in controlling damp and mould in some cases.
In April 2024, the resident told the landlord he had damp and mould in the bathroom of the property. The landlord said its contractor would carry out an inspection once the resident removed the wallpaper from the affected wall. The landlord repeated this to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response on 9 September 2024. The landlord then carried out an inspection of the damp and mould in the resident’s property on 9 October 2024. This was 6 months after the resident had raised this to the landlord.
The landlord should have responded to this as a routine repair within 28 days, and it should have checked with the resident during this time if he needed assistance to remove the wallpaper, taking into consideration his disabilities. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs which inconvenienced the resident as he was waiting for a long time for the repair to be completed.

In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints on 7 November 2024, the landlord accepted the resident needed new double-glazed windows, a new front door, and insulation across the face of the property, after its inspection in October 2024. This was because the windows were blown, and there were gaps allowing water ingress around the kitchen and bathroom windows. The landlord said it would carry out these works as part of its planned maintenance programme from April 2025. These works are scheduled to start on 14 July 2025 which is 192 working days after the landlord’s inspection.
The landlord should have treated this as a planned repair in line with its repairs policy, which states it will complete this type of repair within 90 working days. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs. As the works have not yet started, we will make an order for the landlord to complete the installation of the windows and doors at the property within 8 weeks of the date of this report, in line with its inspection dated 9 October 2024, unless it has already done so.
We acknowledge the resident told the landlord when he escalated his complaint, that his energy bills had increased due to the disrepair of the windows and front door allowing a cold draught into the property. The resident described the bathroom as ‘freezing’. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about this.
The landlord should have asked the resident to submit copies of his energy bills for the relevant period from September2024, as well as the previous year so it could investigate the resident’s concerns. We will make an order for the landlord to investigate this, subject to the resident providing his energy statements from September 2023, until his most recent statement.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.

In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord is to pay the resident £400 compensation for this aspect of the complaint. Examples of this level of compensation in our guidance include where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident but there may be no permanent impact. In this case, the delayed repairs caused distress and inconvenience over a long period of time but there may be no permanent impact if the repairs are completed now, in line with our orders.

The resident’s associated complaint

On 9 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to raise the above complaints. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 44 working days later, on 9 September 2024.
We would expect a landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling). This is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s complaint which would have inconvenienced the resident as he was waiting longer than he should have been for a response to his complaint.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 12 September 2024. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 7 November 2024. This was 40 working days later. This was reasonable because the landlord had communicated to the resident that it needed extra time before it could provide its final written response to his complaint.
We would expect a landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days, in line with the Code. However, where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint, this should not exceed a further 20 working days.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused him.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s concerns about the new lock in the front door of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a fence to be installed in the front garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and service failure, for which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for a fence to be installed in the front garden.
2. Reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
3. Associated complaint.
The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £600 for distress and inconvenience. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
1. £100 for its errors in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a fence to be installed in the front garden.
2. £400 for errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
3. £100 for errors in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The landlord is to carry out a repair of the extractor fan in the kitchen of the property in line with its healthy home’s inspection report, dated 9 January 2024.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.
Subject to the resident providing copies of his energy bills for the relevant period, the landlord should calculate the increased energy usage for heating his property between September 2024 and July 2025. It should then compensate that difference to the resident within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is to install new windows, front door, and insulation across the front of the property within 8 weeks of the date of this report. These works are to be completed in line with its inspection dated 9 October 2024.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the details of its liability insurer or assess the resident’s claim internally about the damage he said has been caused by the mould on his carpets.