Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Castle Point Borough Council (202403123)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403123

Castle Point Borough Council

31 March 2025

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her property.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since July 2020. The landlord is a local authority. The property was a 2-bedroom new build property when the resident moved in. At the time the resident moved in, the occupants of the property included the resident, her partner, and 2 children. Shortly after moving in, the resident had a 3rd child. The resident’s son is significantly impacted by asthma and other breathing illnesses. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities throughout the period of the complaint.
  2. It is not disputed that shortly after moving into the property, the resident began reporting concerns about mould appearing in the property. The landlord’s repair records state that works were carried out to clear the gutters and improve the upstairs window vents in November 2022.
  3. The resident made further reports in November 2023, and further inspections took place in December 2023, including an inspection by a specialist mould contractor. In or around February 2024, a new humidity-controlled fan was installed in the kitchen, and a mould wash was also completed; however, the resident continued to report issues in March 2024. The landlord subsequently acknowledged a formal complaint.
  4. Throughout this period, the resident was also in contact with the local authority about being rehoused. This was on the basis that the property was now overcrowded, and that the resident’s son’s health was being impacted by the damp and mould in the property. She submitted multiple letters from health professionals to support her request. It is evident that the local authority initially awarded Band C priority for a move; however, this was later increased to Band B on appeal. The local authority has remained in contact with the resident about her position in the queue for a new property, and the landlord was kept informed.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 March 2024, which included the following:
    1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the damp and mould was impacting her son but advised that it was unable to comment on whether this was a direct cause.
    2. It advised it could refer her to an occupational therapist (OT) for further supporting evidence on this point.
    3. It advised its inspections had determined the damp and mould was due to condensation.
    4. It further advised that when the property was built, it passed all building regulations, including the requirements for ventilation.
    5. It noted further ventilation improvements would take place, following which it would carry out a joint inspection. It did not provide a timeframe for these works.
  6. The resident subsequently requested an escalation of her complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed works and noted that a contractor had verbally expressed concerns about structural issues during an inspection. She reiterated her concerns about the impact the issues were having on her son and requested that she be rehoused.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024, which included the following:
    1. It expressed sympathy with the impact the issues were having on her son.
    2. It noted her concerns about possible structural issues. It advised it had spoken with the builders who confirmed that there were no recorded issues with the property and that it had met all requirements. It also noted that the other properties in the development had not experienced similar issues. The landlord has provided its internal communications to this service which show that it made relevant enquiries with its team around this time.
    3. It noted that it had installed new vents in the property but that the resident had declined a new fan in the kitchen.
    4. It also noted that the resident had cancelled appointments on 25 March 2024 and 9 April 2024. It urged the resident to rebook these when possible.
    5. It concluded by acknowledging it had a responsibility to tackle damp and mould and advised it was committed to further inspections and to completing any recommended works.
  8. The resident subsequently expressed her disappointment with the response. She noted that the landlord’s records were incorrect, and that the kitchen fan had already been installed. She also disputed there had ever been an appointment suggested for 25 March 2024 and that the landlord had cancelled the appointment on 17 April 2024.

Post complaint

  1. It is evident that a further inspection took place in April 2024. In May 2024, the landlord provided the resident with copies of the report and committed to completing the recommended improvements to ventilation and a mould wash.
  2. The evidence indicates that the resident wished to initially postpone these works so the local authority’s environmental health team (EH) could complete an inspection. EH conducted an inspection on 18 July 2024 and concluded that there was a “low category 2 hazard” on the basis of overcrowding and high levels of humidity. It also noted that due to the inspection occurring in the summer months, it was difficult to assess the damp and mould.
  3. In October 2024, the landlord reiterated its commitment to complete further ventilation works and to complete a mould wash. It is evident that the resident had concerns about the mould wash and the impact the chemicals would have on her son. It asked the resident to confirm a suitable time for the works.
  4. EH completed a further inspection on 9 January 2025. They noted new ventilation had been installed but that there was still damp and mould. However, they found that humidity ranges were now within the “normal ideal living range.” They concluded that the recommended works to install a PIV unit and complete further mould washes were “appropriate to remove the statutory nuisance” and that the landlord had agreed to this.
  5. The resident has advised this service that as of March 2025, she is currently at position 3 on the wait list for a new property. She also noted concerns about the impact that a PIV unit may have on her son’s health.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her son’s health.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her son, she has the option to seek legal advice.
  3. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.
  4. Additionally, throughout the period of the complaint, the resident had a separate complaint about her banding for rehousing. Complaints about a local authority’s housing register are investigated by the Local Housing and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Should the resident wish to pursue a complaint relating to this issue, she has the option to refer the complaint to the LGSCO.
  5. Further, as noted above, the issues experienced by the resident have continued beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response. The Ombudsman is an impartial service and can only investigate complaints where both parties have been able to provide their position. The Ombudsman considers this to have taken place as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process and responses. The events which have occurred beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response, while noted for context, are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation, as they have not been internally investigated by the landlord as part of its complaints process. Given that they have occurred within the last 12 months, the resident has the option to raise a new stage 1 complaint about these events should she have any concerns.
  6. Finally, the resident has expressed that her preferred resolution is to be rehoused. The Ombudsman is often unable to order that a person be rehoused. This is because the Ombudsman is not in a position to assess the competing priorities of other applicants. Instead, orders which are within the Ombudsman’s power have been made below that are relevant to issues investigated.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in the property in accordance with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says that the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. This service’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords consider whether they require an overall framework and policy to address damp and mould. While it is evident that the landlord publishes an advice leaflet on preventing damp and mould in the home, based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord does not have a specific policy relating to damp and mould.
  3. In this case, it is evident that when the resident has reported concerns about damp and mould, the landlord has raised inspections to assess the issue. It has also raised works to improve ventilation based on the outcome of these inspections. These actions were appropriate and in line with best practice in such circumstances.
  4. The spotlight report on damp and mould also confirms that it is best practice for landlords to schedule follow-up visits after works are completed to check that the problem has not returned. In this case, based on the landlord’s repair records, it is not evident that the landlord did this following its initial works. However, following the resident’s further reports, the landlord instructed a specialist damp and mould contractor to provide a full report on the property. This was again in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations to escalate a response where previous works have been unsuccessful.
  5. In her reports, the resident raised concerns that the property was not built correctly. In particular, she expressed concerns that as the property was built during COVID-19 restrictions, there may have been a reduction in standards. As part of its complaint investigation, it is evident that the landlord made enquiries with the builders to ensure that the property was built to the correct standards. It also had access to all of the building certificates, which indicated there were no issues with the property. It appropriately responded to the resident that, in the absence of specific evidence, it was satisfied that the property met regulations.
  6. The various inspection reports have stated that the damp and mould is being caused by condensation in the property. In response, the landlord raised various works to improve ventilation, such as new vents and clearing existing airflow areas. It also conducted mould washes and provided relevant advice to the resident about maintaining ventilation and cleaning reoccurring mould. However, there were instances where works could not immediately be completed due to varying factors. In such circumstances, the landlord should consider if any mitigating interim steps can be taken, such as the use of a dehumidifier. It is not evident, however, that the landlord considered this.
  7. It is not disputed that the property is overcrowded and that the resident had significant concerns about her son’s vulnerabilities. In such circumstances, the landlord should consider all possibilities, including relocation. It is evident that the resident was actively pursuing this option and had obtained a relevant banding for the local authority’s housing register. The local authority’s medical assessment panel concluded that the banding was appropriate and did not recommend an emergency transfer. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not further consider this option and instead sought to solve the existing damp and mould issues, in line with its repair responsibility.
  8. Given that the landlord is not a qualified medical expert, it was also reasonable that it did not comment on the correlation between the damp and mould and the impact on the resident’s son’s health. It did, however, appropriately acknowledge these concerns in its formal responses.
  9. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to consider the vulnerabilities in a household and adjust its service delivery accordingly. In this case, given the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household, it should have ensured a high level of communication to ensure she understood what steps were being taken and when. In its stage 1 response, while it noted further works were being considered, it did not provide her with the timeframe for these to take place. Additionally, while it appropriately noted the potential to include an OT in its considerations, it is not evident that this was explored further. This was a missed opportunity for it to demonstrate a high level of communication and to ensure every option was considered.
  10. Additionally, it is important that landlords closely monitor works to ensure they are progressed effectively and that clear records are kept of all visits so the landlord can evidence this. In its stage 2 response, the landlord caused confusion by stating that works which had already been completed had been declined by the resident. It also referenced that the resident had cancelled appointments; however, this is disputed by the resident, and the landlord’s records do not corroborate its version of events. These errors would have been distressing for the resident and point to both poor record keeping and an ineffective complaint investigation.
  11. In summary, the landlord has inspected the resident’s reports and completed works recommended by its qualified expert contractors, including improved ventilation and mould washes. It also gave relevant advice about managing condensation. These actions were reasonable and in line with its responsibilities and best practice. In its role as a landlord, it was unable to offer an immediate relocation, but it appropriately kept itself informed about the resident’s banding with the local authority on medical grounds.
  12. However, given the vulnerabilities in the property, it could have improved its level of contact to offer a high level of accuracy and reassurance. It also failed to consider any mitigating interim steps. Furthermore, it caused confusion and distress in its stage 2 response due to its poor record keeping. In the circumstances, these failings amount to a finding of service failure. An order has been made for £200, being £100 for its inadequate communication and £100 for the distress caused by its stage 2 response.
  13. It is important to note that the issues in this case are ongoing. The landlord has remained committed to further ventilation works and mould washes, as recommended by EH. Given, however, that the resident has reservations about the installation of a PIV unit, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the works further. This discussion should include consideration as to whether an OT report should be obtained and whether any alternative measures, such as a heated air conditioning unit, could be installed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her property.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her property.
  2. This amount must be paid directly to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to contact the resident to discuss its offer of further works. This discussion should include consideration as to whether an OT report should be obtained and whether any alternative measures, such as a heated air conditioning unit, could be installed. Evidence of this discussion should be provided to this service.