Castle Point Borough Council (202305588)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305588

Castle Point Borough Council

20 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 10 July 2015. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom bungalow and the resident lives with her 3 children, 2 of which are adults.
  2. In March 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in the property, following which the landlord attended to complete a mould wash in the affected areas.
  3. On 14 October 2022, the resident’s son informed the landlord that the mould had returned to the property. The landlord completed an inspection on 24 October 2022. While the landlord completed some of the works in November and December 2022, it was unable to complete all the works raised.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 February 2023 to express concerns about the property as she had been reporting damp and mould for a long time. She said the property was freezing due to cracks in the walls, it felt like it had no roof and cost £80 per week to heat.
  5. The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 28 February 2023 following which it arranged for a specialist to complete a damp and mould survey. That survey, completed on 28 March 2023, recommended further works.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint, via her local MP, on 18 May 2023 about the ongoing damp and mould in the property.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 August 2023. It accepted there had been significant delays in rectifying defects in the property and apologised for the stress caused. It asked the resident to confirm that all outstanding works were complete and offered £300 compensation to reflect the failings.
  8. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 30 August 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 September 2023. It reiterated the response given at stage 1 and said it found the response and compensation given at stage 1 was reasonable. On 11 October 2023, the landlord increased the compensation offer to £400.
  9. In referring her complaint to us, the resident said the issues remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint the resident raised the impact the delays, damp, and mould had on her mental health and her family’s physical health. While we do not dispute this, we cannot make a causal link between the issues and the resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for a court and the resident has the choice to seek legal advice. We will however consider the overall distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. The resident reported mould in her property in March 2022. The landlord raised the works on 17 March 2022. It attended within the timescales set out in its tenancy handbook on 25 March 2022 to complete a mould wash in the affected areas. This was reasonable in the circumstances and resolved the issue at that time for the resident.
  2. On 14 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say the damp had returned to the walls in the property. The landlord appropriately arranged to complete an inspection of the property.
  3. The inspection took place on 24 October 2022, following which the surveyor advised of the works needed to resolve the damp and mould in the property. However, we cannot see that the landlord raised these works until 7 November 2022 and only did so after the resident had chased the landlord for updates. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective systems in place to track and monitor repairs to ensure they raise them at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The contractor attended on 18 November 2022, 19 working days after the inspection. This was in line with it repair timescales as set out in its tenancy handbook. While its contractor was able to complete some of the works, it was unable to complete all works in the bathroom due to the need to remove a radiator. The landlord swiftly arranged for another contractor to remove this on 22 November 2022.
  5. However, when the contractor attended the resident declined the removal of the radiator and said it would mean leaving her with a cold room for an unknown period. Following this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have spoken with the resident to give her a timeline of when it would attend to complete the works to manage her expectations. It would have also been appropriate for it to have considered if could have provided any temporary solutions while the radiator was missing. However, we cannot see that the landlord took any action.
  6. The landlord’s lack of action meant that when its contractor attended on 14 December 2022, it was unable to complete all the outstanding works as the radiator was still in place. The contractor informed the landlord of this, but the evidence shows the landlord did not follow up on this. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to speak to the resident and explain the need to remove the radiator and to have considered if it could have provided any temporary solutions to alleviate the resident’s concerns about the cold. Instead, it closed the job and took no further action.
  7. The resident then contacted the landlord on 23 February 2023 and said she had been reporting damp and mould for a long time and explained that the increased heating costs amounted to £80 per week. The landlord appropriately arranged for its surveyor to attend to inspect the property on 28 February 2023. This was in line with its repair policy which says it would attend within 20 working days for routine repairs.
  8. After the inspection, the landlord ordered a further specific condensation and mould survey. The landlord appropriately raised the works order for its contractor to attend. While this was reasonable, there is no evidence that the landlord considered if it could have provided temporary solutions to the resident while awaiting the further survey. Given that the resident had raised concerns about the temperature in the property and the impact on her 2 year old child, its lack of consideration of temporary solutions was not appropriate, especially given the ongoing history of damp and mould in the property.
  9. In the correspondence, the resident raised concerns about the cost of heating. This would have been an opportunity for the landlord to consider if it could have offered the resident any additional support or made a referral to support services. The landlord has a duty of care towards resident’s particularly where young children are involved and its lack of empathy towards to the resident’s situation was not reasonable.
  10. The contractor arranged to attend on 20 April 2023, however following a call from the resident on 9 March 2023 during which she was very distressed about the cold in the property and the impact of the damp and mould, the landlord contacted the contractor to see if they could attend earlier. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed a renewed commitment to resolve the issue quickly for the resident.
  11. However, given that the resident specifically mentioned the cold in the property from the lack of radiators and drafts in the property, this was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to have considered if it could provide temporary solutions to the resident. Its failure to do so highlights a lack of empathy.
  12. The landlord arranged for it to attend to complete the others works raised following the first inspection. However, from the evidence provided the landlord did not raise those further works until 24 March 2023, just under a month after the first inspection. This was not appropriate; The landlord needs to ensure it raises works at the earliest opportunity especially in cases of damp and mould where a proactive approach is important to prevent further issues.
  13. It is important to note however that the landlord attended to complete some of these works on 28 March 2023 which, while it delayed in raising them, meant it completed the works in line with its repairs policy. Unfortunately, the resident was unavailable on that date and so it attended on 30 March 2023. During that appointment, the landlord completed the mould wash to the affected rooms and overhauled 3 windows to ensure they were efficient and able to vent. The landlord’s efficiency in completing these works showed its commitment to resolve the situation for the resident.
  14. The inspection in February also raised issues with the skirting in the kitchen and found faults with the bedroom windows. The landlord attended to these repairs on 18 April 2024. This was outside of the landlord’s 20 day repair timescale. This is not appropriate as during that time the resident chased the landlord for updates. Where the landlord cannot complete repairs within its published timescales, it needs to ensure it has regular communication with the resident to manage expectations. In this case, we cannot see that it did communicate effectively with the resident which caused her to chase for updates.
  15. Following the specialist damp and mould survey on 28 March 2023, the contractor suggested the installation of ventilation units in the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. However, the evidence shows the landlord did not raise the recommended works following that survey until 20 April 2023. This delay is not appropriate. The landlord needs to ensure it raises works at the earliest opportunity to ensure a swift resolution for its resident’s.
  16. The delays in completing the works caused the resident to approach her local MP for help, who contacted the landlord on 18 May 2023. It was because of this that the landlord contacted the resident to clarify the state of the outstanding works and to provide the resident with a clear timetable of the outstanding works. While it was reasonable of the landlord to provide the update, it is not satisfactory that it took input from an MP for the landlord to do so.
  17. The contractor did not attend to install the fans in the property until 19 June 2023. It is unclear why, from the evidence provided, there was such a delay in the landlord completing the works. The landlord’s lack of proactive action in this case to complete the repairs within its published timescale was not appropriate and it left the resident living with damp and mould for an extended period.
  18. It is important to note that there was also some confusion around the appointment dates with regards to the fan installation. The resident had received a text message confirming attendance for 22 June 2023, however the contractor denied ever having an appointment booked for that date and said the number who had text the resident did not belong to them. It has been clear throughout this case there the landlord had a lack of effective communication with its contractors, and it spent time chasing the contractors to confirm dates for appointments. The issue of the appointment for the 22 June 2023 is evidence of this. The landlord needs to ensure it has a robust and efficient system in place to track and monitor all repairs, especially those that it outsources to contractors. Not doing so in this instance caused the resident to wait in unnecessarily.
  19. The landlord was due to complete the final mould treatment works on the 4 and 6 July 2023 however the contractor did not attend. The evidence suggests the contractor cancelled the appointment without informing the resident or the landlord. The landlord only became aware when the resident informed them as such. While the landlord contacted the contractor as soon as it became aware, it is further evidence of a lack of effective communication between itself, and the contractors and the landlord must consider any learning it can take from this.
  20. The contractor contacted the resident on 7 July 2023 to arrange a further appointment for 14 July 2023. The landlord appropriately tried to contact the resident both via email and telephone on 7,11 and 12 July to confirm the suitability of this appointment. When the contractor attended, while the resident was home, she said she was unavailable for the appointment. While it is unfortunate the resident could not facilitate the appointment, in this instance the landlord took reasonable steps to try to confirm its suitability.
  21. Following that failed appointment, the landlord said that its contractor had tried to contact the resident to rearrange the appointment but had been unsuccessful. It, therefore, appropriately, recommended that the resident make contact with it to arrange to complete the outstanding works. Landlords do not have finite resources and therefore it was reasonable of it at that stage to put the onus on the resident to contact it to arrange the appointment given its earlier unsuccessful attempts.
  22. Throughout the complaint, the resident consistently raised that the damp and mould had ruined her personal belongings, including her child’s cot. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it ever responded to this point to signpost the resident to her own contents insurance, its own insurance if relevant or set out its position on whether it would consider reimbursing the resident for such costs and link its reasoning to a policy. To provide no response to the resident on this issue was unreasonable.
  23. In concluding the complaint, the landlord accepted there was significant delays in completing the damp and mould works in the resident’s property. It apologised for the overall distress and inconvenience caused and offered the resident £300 compensation to reflect that. Following further correspondence from the resident about the impact the issues had on her, it offered a further £100 compensation. It was appropriate of the landlord to apologise for the failings, to accept it had delayed in resolving the issue and offer compensation. However, it was not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case due to the considerable length of time the issue remained unresolved and the landlord’s lack of effective communication with both the resident and its contractor.
  24. Taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  25. We have made a compensation order for £800, made up of the following:
    1. £400 previously offered by the landlord in this case.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience.
    3. £200 for the time and trouble.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 February 2023 to express dissatisfaction at the length of time she had been living with damp and mould in the property. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.” Given the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered this as a formal complaint.
  2. The landlord logged a formal complaint after receiving an enquiry from the local MP on 18 May 2023. While it was appropriate of the landlord to log this as a complaint, it was not reasonable that it took contact from the MP for the landlord to log the issue as a complaint.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2023. This was 6 days outside of its published timescale of 5 working days for acknowledging a complaint. Given that by that date the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response, this was not appropriate and caused a delay in the resident receiving a resolution to her complaint.
  4. The landlord then contacted the resident on 15 and 27 June 2023 to confirm it was unable to provide the stage 1 response as it was awaiting further information. While it was appropriate, and in line with the Code, for the landlord to inform the resident of the delay it would have been appropriate for it to set out the date of when it would provide the response to manage the resident’s expectations. Furthermore, the Code sets out that the landlord must agree any extension beyond 20 working days with a resident, yet the landlord has provided no evidence that it made such an agreement.
  5. The landlord then contacted the resident again on 28 June 2023. In this it set out its response and accepted its failings in the handling of the resident’s issue. It told the resident it would compensate her for the failings but advised before doing so it needed to meet with relevant staff members to agree the response and the compensation. It is inappropriate that the landlord provided a response with a promise of compensation before it had agreed such action with the necessary staff members. The response could have inadvertently raised the resident’s expectations. While we understand it wanted to give some clarity to the resident, providing a half response was not appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. Furthermore, it said it would be unable to agree the compensation until the head of service returned to work following annual leave on 13 July 2023. This again is not appropriate. Residents should not have to wait for complaint outcomes due to annual leave. The landlord should ensure it has staff in place to deal with these situations during periods of annual leave. Not doing so caused further delays in the resident receiving her response.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023, 34 days outside of its published timescale. This delay was unsatisfactory. Furthermore, the response did not provide clarity on the issues raised by the resident and lacked evidence that it had completed a thorough investigation into the issues raised, as per the Code.
  8. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 30 August 2023, and the landlord provided its response, in line with its policy, on 8 September 2023.
  9. However, its complaint response again did not evidence that it had undertaken a thorough investigation of the issues raised. The phrase used by the landlord that “from the information at hand” it had reached its conclusion indicates a lack of investigation and a disregard to the issues raised by the resident.
  10. Unfortunately, the resident did not receive the response and so it resent this on 11 October 2023. In this response, it offered further compensation to the resident to reflect further issues she had raised when chasing the response. While it is unfortunate the resident did not receive the response, the landlord resent the response as soon as it became aware she had not received it.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard expected by us. It delayed unnecessarily in sending the response at stage 1 and did not properly acknowledge the delay in its complaint response. While it responded in line with its policy at stage 2, its response at both stages lacked evidence of a thorough investigation into the complaint.
  12. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  13. A compensation order is made for £250, made up of the following:
    1. £50 for not logging the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
    2. £100 for the delay at stage 1.
    3. £100 for not undertaking a thorough investigation at both stages of the complaint.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
  2. Under paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,050, made up of the following:
    1. £800 for its handling of the damp and mould, to be paid less the £400 previously offered if it has not already paid this.
    2. £250 for its complaint handling.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide the resident and us with a timebound action plan, setting out the actions it intends to take to resolve the outstanding damp and mould in her home. In doing so, it must complete a further survey of the property.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must undertake a review of this case to understand why the failings occurred and consider any learning it can take forward in its handling of damp and mould case. It must provide us with a copy of the review within the timeframe above.