Basildon Borough Council (202451868)

Decision
Case ID	202451868
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Basildon Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident says her household includes 2 disabled children, one of whom has weak lungs and often has chest infections. She complained about the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs, and that a number of repairs identified in 2023 were outstanding.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to electrics following a leak.
2. Damp, mould, and ceiling repairs.
3. Bathrooms repairs.
4. Reports regarding the loft insulation and roof.
5. A request for a full asbestos survey.
6. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to electrics following a leak.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and ceiling repairs.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathrooms repairs.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports regarding the loft insulation and roof.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for an asbestos survey.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to electrics following a leak

The repairs were scheduled and completed in a reasonably timely manner.

Damp, mould and ceiling repairs

Some of the identified repairs have not progressed in any substantial way since 2023.

Bathrooms repairs

The works to remove asbestos flooring and renew flooring were not appropriately progressed.

Reports regarding the loft insulation and roof

The landlord inspected and completed identified works to renew the loft insulation and roof in a timely manner after the complaint.

Requests for a full asbestos survey

The landlord was not required to do a full asbestos survey of the nature the resident requested.

Complaint handling

The landlord missed the opportunity presented by the complaints procedure to effectively monitor and resolve the issues.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused her and the time and trouble she has gone to. This comprises £400 for the damp, mould and ceiling repairs, £100 for the bathrooms repairs, and £100 for the complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 February 2026
	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a joint inspection, by a senior repairs representative of the landlord, and senior representative of its contractor, to inspect outstanding works for: The ceilings of the bedrooms, bathrooms and landing. The flooring of the bathrooms. The kitchen extractor fan. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must: Produce a written report which it provides to us and the resident. Consider any outstanding works to the ceilings of the bedrooms, bathrooms and landing. Consider any outstanding works to the flooring of the bathrooms. Consider any outstanding works for the kitchen extractor fan, taking into account the functionality and location of the kitchen extractor fan, to help mitigate kitchen condensation. The report must set out its findings on the above and detail: Any issues that are the resident’s responsibility to take action for, where applicable. A scope of works, including any asbestos tests or removal. The likely timescales to commence and complete any works, including asbestos tests and removal. An action plan to complete and monitor works, including after any asbestos tests and removal. A single point of contact for the resident while the works are outstanding.	No later than 13 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord is recommended to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and: Ensure that it clearly considers reasonable adjustments in its service delivery, such as repairs timeframes. Review again whether its contractor cannot centrally record and have regard to the resident’s request to be called when operatives attend, due to the hearing disability in the household. Review whether it has recorded the resident’s household vulnerabilities and has sufficient processes in place to have regard to these, including her above request for a reasonable adjustment, such as when it raises repairs and schedules appointments. Take any appropriate action to explore solutions or address shortfalls in its service in respect to the above.

Our recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and:

Ensure that it clearly considers reasonable adjustments in its service delivery, such as repairs timeframes.
Review again whether its contractor cannot centrally record and have regard to the resident’s request to be called when operatives attend, due to the hearing disability in the household.
Review whether it has recorded the resident’s household vulnerabilities and has sufficient processes in place to have regard to these, including her above request for a reasonable adjustment, such as when it raises repairs and schedules appointments.
Take any appropriate action to explore solutions or address shortfalls in its service in respect to the above.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 January 2025	The resident verbally complained to the landlord. She raised dissatisfaction about its handling after a recent leak from pipework in the loft. She had to chase follow up works and there was a lack of follow up to recent visits to its offices about outstanding repairs. She was then given an appointment a month away, despite her making it aware that her children were partially sighted. She had been given dates for outstanding jobs but she was unhappy these had not included outstanding historical repairs for the walls, ceilings and loft which she had reported, including at the recent visits. She was unhappy she had been told that the issues would have to be assessed again, as these were previously inspected and photographed. After previous reports about mould a plasterer had said an asbestos check was required. After previous reports about roof leaks, she was told the loft was rotten and needed insulation. She was told she could install a cooker hood for kitchen condensation, but she did not feel she should have to do this when there was something wrong with a kitchen extractor fan. A stock survey had identified that a new roof was required. She raised concerns about the impact of issues on her children.
27 January 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1: It noted there was no mention of issues with the loft or insulation when some roof works were completed in 2021. It apologised there was no record of mould treatment after an operative attended for the bathroom ceiling and recommended this in 2021. It noted it was unable to find a record of loft insulation renewal being scheduled and completed after this was recommended when it had completed roof and ceiling works in 2022. It noted that appointments in 2022 and 2023 to treat mould had been cancelled by the resident or received no access. It noted that its contractor attended in late 2023 and identified repairs including a cistern leak, bathroom ceiling removal and reinstatement, renewal of flooring in 2 bathrooms, and boxing behind a toilet. It said it appeared that there were delays in these works being completed and appointments were not rescheduled until further contact from the resident. It noted the resident reported on 11 January 2025 that a leak from a loft pipe was affecting multiple rooms, and it had stopped the leak and made safe the electrics the same day. It said an appointment for mould treatment and inspection of the roof and ceilings was scheduled for 4 February 2025. It said works to rectify the electrics and overhaul the kitchen fan was scheduled for 17 February 2025. It said works for the toilet cistern leak was scheduled for 26 February 2025. It said works to remove asbestos from the bathroom ceiling and reinstate the bathroom ceiling was scheduled for 20 and 21 March 2025. It said that an asbestos test was needed before some downstairs toilet flooring works and this had been requested. It also said that works to the boxing was also needed before the flooring works and these were scheduled for 1 April 2025. It said the scheduled appointments were the earliest ones available but said it would bring them forward if this was possible. It apologised for delays in the issues being rectified.
28 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint: She raised concerns about discrepancies in the response. She said she had never cancelled repairs and she had asked for contractors to call if they got no answer, as her husband is deaf. She said that no works had been done to any ceilings, including a bathroom ceiling with black mould, since a ceiling was made safe in 2021. She raised concerns with the communication between the contractor, the landlord and her. She said that often when operatives attended they say they are unable to do the repair, they will do a report, and the contractor will contact her, but this did not happen and repairs never got completed. She said the reason why there was still black mould in her bathroom and no insulation was because the contractor and the landlord had never rescheduled to do the work. She noted the repairs were now booked but said the timescale and conditions she, her husband and disabled children had had to live in were not acceptable. She raised concerns that recent or previous pictures taken by operatives over the past few years had not been reviewed to see the severity of the complaint. She noted she had requested for a full asbestos survey to be done, due to the works that needed to be done, her only having a partial report, and an operative having an incorrect report. She noted asbestos was safe if not disturbed. However, she raised concerns that her having black mould and broken and wet ceilings had disturbed it and that it could pose a health risk, especially to one of her children who had weak lungs and had had ongoing sore throats and colds. She noted previous visits and that a stock surveyor had said she needed a new roof and was putting her down for this.
4 February 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2: It re-stated the appointments scheduled for the works. It said it had not upheld the complaint as all the issues were addressed and works were scheduled following the stage 1 complaint. It acknowledged delays in its previous response and had raised this with its contractor. It invited the resident to provide further information about discrepancies for it to investigate further. It noted the resident said her husband’s deafness was a reason for no access. It said it could find no records this had been added to any repairs reports and that this would need to be raised in each repair report. It noted that a 2023 inspection had identified the roof to require renewal in 2030. It noted the resident requested a full asbestos survey. It said it was unable to agree to the request. It noted that a survey was done in 2014 and said it only requested asbestos tests in areas it intended to do works. It apologised for delays in issues being rectified and said it aimed to learn and improve its service.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She raised dissatisfaction with delays, management and communication in respect to the repairs. She said multiple repairs remain outstanding, and is seeking for these to be completed.

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.

Complaint	Repairs to electrics following a leak
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained that she had to chase follow-on electric repairs for a leak. She also complained that the landlord then scheduled the repairs, including restoration of landing lighting, in a month’s time. She said this was too long since her children were partially sighted. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that the repairs were scheduled for 17 February 2025 and it would bring them forward if possible. Its stage 2 response then confirmed it had brought them forward to 30 January 2025.
The evidence shows that the resident reported a leak on 11 January 2025 (a Saturday) and the same day, an operative fixed a loft pipework leak, made safe electrics, and reported a follow-on repair for lighting and a smoke alarm. The follow-on repair was then raised on 13 January 2025 (a Monday), the same day the resident chased, and scheduled for 17 February 2025. They were then rescheduled and completed on 30 January 2025 after the resident escalated the complaint on 28 January 2025.
The landlord responded to the leak the same day and in a timely manner. The resident says she had to chase the follow-on repair, which may have been frustrating, but the follow-on repair was also raised in a timely manner as this was raised the Monday after the leak and within 1 working day. The landlord was then positive to bring the follow-on repair for the landing lighting and smoke alarm forward. These were scheduled and completed in a reasonably timely way.
While the above is the case, the resident’s reports of her children being partially sighted could have prompted clearer consideration about whether reasonable adjustments could be made for the timeframe of the follow-on repairs. The landlord and its contractor discussed the possibility of bringing the repairs forward, and did eventually bring them forward. But it is not evident that the children’s partial sight, the nature of the repair and the risk were a clear consideration, as may be reasonably expected.
It is not evident that any significant detriment was caused by the time it took to restore the landing lighting, and the landlord noted the resident was happy with the repair being brought forward. However, we recommend the landlord to ensure that it clearly considers reasonable adjustments in similar circumstances, in line with its complaints policy which says its aims include “respecting the diversity of service users and providing reasonable adjustments where necessary.”

Complaint	Damp, mould, and ceiling repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained that the landlord had not raised repairs for ceilings and walls when she had raised these after the January 2025 leak. She said there had been a lack of action after operatives had previously attended for reports of black mould on the bathroom ceiling. She also said there was still something wrong with a kitchen extractor fan, after she had reported that she experienced condensation when she cooked and operatives had found the kitchen extractor to work.
The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged and apologised that there had been a lack of progress to some repairs, which included reinstatement of the bathroom ceiling, identified in late 2023. It confirmed it had scheduled a February 2025 inspection and mould treatment for the ceilings, a February 2025 repair for the kitchen extractor, and March 2025 works for the bathroom ceiling.
The evidence shows that the resident’s most recent reports about damp and mould before her complaint were around October 2023, when the landlord raised a repair for damp and mould to bedroom and bathroom ceilings. In November 2023, a repair was then raised which included works to remove asbestos from 1 square metre of the bathroom ceiling and reinstate the ceiling. The ceiling works did not subsequently progress, although the landlord attended in early 2024 for other works.
The resident then reported a loft pipework leak on 11 January 2025, which she reported affected every room upstairs. On 23 January 2025, the day the resident complained, the landlord raised a repair to inspect ceilings and walls, raised a repair to overhaul the kitchen extractor fan, and re-raised the repair to replace 1 square metre of the bathroom ceiling.
The landlord was appropriate to acknowledge and apologise that the bathroom ceiling works identified in November 2023 were delayed, and to confirm that it had raised repairs for this and other issues the resident raised. This was potentially proportionate action for the damp and mould issues that the resident reported. However, multiple issues have not progressed in any substantial way.
The landlord said in its response that any necessary mould treatment would be carried out at a February 2025 visit. Its repairs records show no evidence of a mould treatment being raised and the resident says this was not done.
The landlord’s contractor attended in February 2025 to inspect multiple ceilings. They noted issues with water damage and identified works to remove and replace a part of a large bedroom ceiling, remove and replace the whole of a small bedroom ceiling, and repair a landing ceiling. Its repairs records show no evidence of these being raised. The resident says no ceiling works have been done and provided photos of water-stained bedroom ceilings.
The landlord’s contractor attended in March 2025 to replace the bathroom ceiling, and its records note the repair was completed then, but the resident says this was not done. She says that when operatives attended to remove the ceiling asbestos, they agreed more works were needed than noted, and said they would report this back. She says that as she felt there was no point in doing only 1 square metre of the bathroom ceiling, the bathroom ceiling was patched with black duct tape. She says the ceiling has been left in this condition, despite chasing the contactor.
The resident confirms that the landlord’s contractor attended to overhaul the kitchen extractor fan and said it needed to be cleaned. She says it does not work and is not in a suitable location.
This shows that the bedroom and landing ceiling works were not progressed after a February 2025 inspection identified works. The kitchen fan was not overhauled in line with the raised repair and it is unclear that the issue has been addressed in an effective way. The bathroom ceiling has continued to not be repaired after the works were originally identified in November 2023. It not evident that a mould treatment was raised and done as committed to by the complaint responses.
This is not satisfactory, particularly since part of the resident’s complaint was a lack of follow-up to works and communication between the contractor, the landlord and her. The issues and delays seen in 2023 have continued which suggests the landlord and contractor have not taken effective enough steps to try to avoid them.
We do not make definitive decisions about causes for the impact on health, and it is not clear that issues have had a significant detriment. However, the landlord has not shown sufficient regard for the resident’s concerns that issues posed a health risk to her vulnerable children.
The photos the resident provided also show water damaged ceilings and the bathroom ceiling with a large area of black material taped to it. The black material may have helped mitigate against mould, but these will be unsightly and unpleasant conditions to live in.
The landlord’s continued lack of resolution of the issues will have caused distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident. We order the landlord to pay £400 to recognise this and take some specific repairs actions, after considering the evidenced service issues, impact and our remedies guidance.
We note the resident raised concerns that some historical appointments for damp and mould were recorded as no access. She said her husband is deaf and operatives should have telephoned when they attend for repairs to avoid these being missed.
This does not seem to have been a specific issue in the complaint timeframe. The landlord’s response that she should raise this preference when speaking to the contractor about repairs was not unreasonable, as this was after the landlord discussed the issue with the contractor. However, recommendations are made about this.

Complaint	Bathrooms repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained about some previous bathroom repairs and a lack of follow-up after operatives said asbestos checks were required. These are understood to have been to repair previous water damage. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged and apologised that there had been a lack of progress to some repairs, which included a cistern leak, renewing flooring in 2 bathrooms, and repairing boxing behind a toilet. It confirmed it had scheduled a February 2025 repair for the cistern leak, scheduled an April 2025 repair for the boxing, and said it would progress the flooring after this had been asbestos tested.
The evidence shows that in November 2023, a repair was raised which included works to repair the cistern leak, renew flooring in 2 bathrooms, and repair boxing behind the toilet. The landlord’s contractors attended for the works in January and May 2024, but reported that asbestos tests and removal was required, and the works did not progress. The resident confirms the cistern leak was repaired but says it has been a recurrent issue.
The landlord confirmed it re-raised the repairs after the resident’s January 2025 complaint, and it repaired a cistern leak in February 2025 and rotten boxing in April 2025. However, it is not evident that works to remove asbestos flooring and renew flooring have progressed, until the resident reported a further leak in November 2025. The landlord raised further flooring works after these in December 2025 and January 2026, but it is unclear these are complete, and there is evidence of further delays due to the asbestos team not attending to remove flooring.
The landlord was appropriate to acknowledge and apologise that the bathroom works identified in November 2023 were delayed, and to confirm that it had re-raised repairs for them. This was potentially proportionate action for these issues. However, the flooring did not progress in any substantial way in the 9 months after the landlord’s complaint response and cistern leak repair, and in the 7 months after the boxing repair.
This is not satisfactory, particularly since part of the resident’s complaint was a lack of follow-up to works and communication between the contractor, the landlord and her. The issues and delays seen in 2023 have continued which suggests the landlord and contractor have not taken sufficiently effective enough steps to try to avoid them.
The evidence is not clear that the outstanding bathroom repairs have had a significant detriment, but the continued lack of resolution will have caused distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
We order the landlord to pay £100 to recognise this and take some specific repairs actions, after considering the evidenced service issues, impact and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Reports regarding the loft insulation and roof
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained there had been a lack of follow up for a recommendation to renew loft insulation, and that a stock survey had found a new roof was required. The landlord’s complaint responses noted that in 2022 a contractor had recommended for the loft insulation to be renewed, and that in 2023 a surveyor had said the roof would require renewal in 2030. It confirmed it had scheduled a February 2025 inspection for the roof.
The evidence shows that in 2021 some roof works were raised and completed, in 2022 loft insulation was recommended to be renewed after a leak (which did not progress), and the resident confirms a stock condition survey of the roof was done in 2023.
The landlord confirmed it had raised an inspection after the resident’s January 2025 complaint, and the February 2025 inspection reported that insulation works were needed and the roof felt was in poor condition. Following this, the landlord erected scaffold in June 2025 and completed works to renew the roof, insulation, gutters, fascias and soffits around July 2025.
The 2022 recommended insulation works did not progress, which is not entirely satisfactory, but it is unclear this resulted in significant detriment. It is unclear there was a significant failing for the roof, as this was previously identified to require renewal in 2030. They also relate to events over a year before the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s response to acknowledge the lack of progress for the loft insulation and arrange for an inspection of the loft and roof was overall proportionate in the circumstances. This gave it the opportunity to inspect the current condition of the loft insulation and roof and take any identified action. The landlord appropriately progressed and completed works it identified to renew the loft insulation and roof. The 5 months these took was reasonably timely, given the nature of the works.

Complaint	A request for a full asbestos survey
Finding	No maladministration

The resident said in her complaint escalation that she sought a full asbestos survey of her home. She said this was because of the works required, her and contractors having inaccurate information, and her concerns it was a health risk. The landlord responded that it was unable to agree to the request, as a survey was done in 2014, and it only requested asbestos tests in areas it intended to do works.
The resident has understandable concerns about handling of works and delays where there have been requests for asbestos checks, which other findings reflect. However, the landlord’s response to the request for a full asbestos survey was reasonable and reflects evidence seen.
The landlord carried out an asbestos survey in 2014 which identified some areas where asbestos was confirmed or presumed. Its repairs policy says that if tenants suspect damaged asbestos or intend to do works that may disturb asbestos, they should call a number or refer to its website. Its contractors are entitled to have a similar approach in requesting asbestos checks when asked to do works in areas they suspect there may be asbestos. It is not evident that the landlord is obligated to do a full asbestos survey of the nature the resident requested.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord provided acknowledgements and responses in these timescales and in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
However, the landlord is reasonably obligated to ensure it meets commitments it makes. Our Complaint Handling Code says that where complaint responses detail outstanding actions, as in this case, these “must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.”
The landlord has not acted in line with this. It has missed the opportunity presented by the complaints procedure to effectively monitor and resolve the substantive issues. The continued lack of resolution, despite making a complaint, will have caused further frustration to the resident and undermined her confidence. We order the landlord to pay £100 to recognise this, after considering the evidenced service issues, impact and our remedies guidance.

Learning

As noted above, multiple repairs have remained uncompleted, despite the resident making a complaint and the landlord making commitments to complete them. The landlord could reflect on this and any service improvements it could make, to try to ensure that repairs which are the subject of complaints are effectively monitored and completed

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

The evidence shows multiple instances where operatives have attended and identified works that have not progressed, including when they have identified that an asbestos check is required, without clear reasons why. This indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, internal communication, and handling of works where follow up is required.
The landlord could reflect on these and particularly review whether it has sufficient processes in place to respond to contractor requests for asbestos checks, and to monitor and progress the related works, to ensure these are completed in a timely manner.