Basildon Borough Council (202407113)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. The resident reported repairs to the landlord including damp and mould and a leaking stack pipe. Some repairs have been completed but the repairs to the kitchen remain outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, a leaking stack pipe, and the associated repairs within the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, a leaking stack pipe, and the associated repairs within the resident’s property.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould, a leaking stack pipe, and the associated repairs

6. The landlord has failed to follow its published timescales, and there were significant delays in its handling of this repair. Many of the repairs in the kitchen remain outstanding. The landlord’s delays and errors in this case have left the resident without the full use of her kitchen for a prolonged period of time. Its poor communication has also seriously impacted the resident. The landlord has failed to provide an appropriate remedy to recognise the significant impact its errors have caused the resident.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code).

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.

8. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated she was aware of having issues with damp and mould within the kitchen of the property for a number of years. She asked us to assist her in raising a formal complaint to the landlord, which it did in July 2024. We have not seen any evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. In the interest of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events occurring from March 2024. This is when the resident’s most recent report was made.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to deal with priority 2 (non-urgent) repairs within 28 calendar days. It took the landlord’s contractor 55 calendar days, and 3 visits to remove the kitchen units so it could get access to treat the mould in the kitchen.
10. The contractor arrived several hours late during its third appointment on 8 April 2024. It was during this visit the contractor identified a leak in the stack pipe in the corner, behind a kitchen cupboard.
11. The landlord aims to deal with priority 1 (emergency) repairs within 24 hours. It was positive the landlord raised the leak as an emergency and another more suitably qualified contractor inspected it the same evening.
12. In May 2024 the landlord’s contractor said it would need access to the neighbour’s flat above to replace the damaged stack pipe. The contractor also said the landlord would need to carry out an asbestos survey of the neighbour’s flooring before it could complete the works. We accept in some circumstances such as these, that this type of repair (non-urgent) may take longer than the landlord’s published timescales of 28 calendar days due to its complexity and the need to involve different specialists.
13. It was appropriate the landlord washed and treated the mould in the kitchen on 9 May 2024. However, the evidence shows there was a lack of clarity in the landlord’s record keeping about the repair to the stack pipe. This led to confusion between the landlord and its contractors which caused a significant delay in it accessing the neighbour’s property to complete the asbestos survey, which it carried out in December 2024. This significant delay of 8 months impacted the resident who had been chasing the landlord for updates as she had been without the full use of her kitchen.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (July 2024) was inappropriate. This was because it said it had repaired the leak when it had not. This error in the landlord’s communication may have added to the resident’s frustration. It was right the landlord apologised for this in its final complaint response.
15. It was unreasonable the landlord’s contractors failed to attend appointments in February 2025 and that it failed to communicate with the resident about this. It was also unacceptable the landlord then closed the repair in May 2025 without completing any of the works to the stack pipe or to the resident’s kitchen. The landlord’s decision to close the repair and its lack of communication with the resident demonstrated it lacked organisation in its handling of the repair. It also showed a lack of empathy, and no consideration for the resident.
16. It is unacceptable the landlord took 19 months to replace the stack pipe. The landlord has also failed to complete the repairs to the resident’s kitchen to a reasonable standard. It is inappropriate that the resident has been left with a kitchen where:
    • The landlord has not replaced the kitchen unit it disposed of in error in April 2024.
    • The original kitchen unit and worktop it has reinstated contains water damage.
    • The flooring has not been replaced after it was damaged by the leak.
    • The landlord has not carried out any decorative works or retiling including where it has boxed the stack pipe in with a wooden box behind the kitchen cupboards.
17. We would expect the landlord to have carried out a full inspection of the kitchen following the damage caused by the prolonged leak from the stack pipe. We would then expect it to replace any damaged sections of the kitchen caused by the leak like for like. Its failure to do so has caused considerable added frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
18. This is why we have ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection of the resident’s kitchen and to carry out any works for which its responsible. We also acknowledge the resident has not had the full use of her kitchen for a prolonged period due to the landlord’s errors. This is why we have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of 20 percent of her weekly rent from 8 April 2024 to the date of this report. As per above, we have applied this compensation from 12 months before the resident raised her formal complaint to the landlord. This is how we have calculated that the landlord must pay the resident £1,373.50
19. The resident and her councillor both chased the landlord for it to provide updates, many of which were not responded to. This added to her distress and inconvenience. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s communications in a timely manner. It should have also provided regular updates including estimated timescales for completing the repairs and it should have explained where its works were going to take longer than estimated.
20. The resident told us that her health has been affected by the landlord’s handling of this repair, as well as the damp and mould within the kitchen of the property. We acknowledge that this has been a difficult time for her. 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
21. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its delays in its handling of this repair in November 2025. Whilst it was positive the landlord attempted to put things right; it has not gone far enough, and the landlord’s offer was made 1 year after its original final response.
22. The landlord failed to put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn the lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from its mistakes.
23. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. It says an order for over £1,000 in compensation may be appropriate when the landlord’s errors have had a severe long-term impact on a resident. This is particularly where failures accumulated over a significant period of time that had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. This applies in this case and has resulted in us finding there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, a leaking stack pipe, and the associated repairs within the resident’s property.

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states the landlord should have a 2 stage process. They should acknowledge a resident’s complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 within 5 working days. It should then provide its complaint response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
25. The resident contacted us in October 2024 to state she had not received her stage 1 complaint response. We chased the landlord who provided evidence it had requested this to be sent by post to the resident on 16 July 2024. Based on the evidence we have seen, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider it had sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident within 10 working days of its acknowledgement of the complaint.
26. The landlord then provided its final response to the complaint 8 working days after we advised it to escalate the resident’s complaint.
27. The landlord responded at each stage of the process within the timescales set out in the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

28. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    • Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    • Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
29. In this case, the records show the landlord failed to progress its repairs in a timely manner. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated on the status of the repairs. The landlord’s failings then led to the resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction which may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs team had followed our recommendations set out within our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance.