Castle Point Borough Council (202522516)

Decision
Case ID	202522516
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Castle Point Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	14 April 2026

Background

The resident lives in a flat with her 4 children, one of whom has cystic fibrosis. She raised concerns about damp and mould and a number of outstanding repairs. She later submitted a formal complaint and said the home was not safe for her family and that she needed to be moved.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Her request to be permanently rehoused.
2. A leak and associated repairs.
3. Reports of ongoing damp and mould.
4. Asbestos in the property.
5. Other repairs.
6. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.
2. Other repairs.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. A leak and associated repairs.
2. Reports of ongoing damp and mould.
3. Asbestos in the property.
4. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request to be permanently rehoused

The landlord told the resident that once the repair works were completed, the hazards would be removed, and the property would be suitable for her to return to. It also provided information about how she could make an application to the Council for rehousing.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and associated repairs

The landlord apologised for a period of poor communication but did not acknowledge wider failings. It did not act with reasonable urgency after identifying a leak and safety issues in the bathroom, despite knowing young children, and a highly vulnerable child, lived in the property. The family was left without safe bathing facilities for several weeks. Although the landlord repaired most of the leak-related damage, the bathroom floor remained unrepaired.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ongoing damp and mould

The landlord did not take reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould over a prolonged period. The landlord relied on mould washes rather than addressing the root causes and did not act proactively when appointments were missed, even though it had medical evidence showing the household included a vulnerable child at risk from damp and mould exposure.

The landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property

The landlord did not take reasonable steps to address the asbestos hazards identified during the environmental health inspection. Although it removed the asbestos and replaced the underfloor in the girl’s bedroom, it did not complete the work by laying vinyl floor tiles as it had committed to. The landlord also did not inspect the flooring under the carpet in the resident’s son’s bedroom, despite being advised to do so, meaning it has not established whether this area poses a risk. In addition, the landlord did not confirm whether it had sealed the kitchen ceiling joint as recommended.

The landlord’s handling of other repairs

The landlord completed several repairs, including fixing the leaking radiator pipe, a hot-water tape, electrical repairs, and addressing issues with the kitchen window handles and window board within a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord did not recognise or acknowledge the resident’s January 2025 expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint when it should have according to its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. As a result, the landlord did not log or respond to the complaint for 8 months, until the resident raised another complaint in August 2025. It has not acknowledged its complaint handling failures.

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	Completing the works order The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the following work is completed promptly, and in any event, by the due date: Replace the bathroom flooring that was damaged by the leak. Install vinyl flooring in the bedroom where asbestos was removed. Repoint the brickwork at the front corner, left of the lounge window.	No later than 13 May 2026
2	Asbestos inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a full asbestos survey. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is complete by the due date. The surveyor’s written report must be shared with the resident. The inspection must: Consider the environmental health report from 2025. Inspect the entire property, including: The flooring beneath the carpet in the son’s bedroom. The joint in the kitchen ceiling. Cracks in the ceilings. What the inspection must achieve The survey report must set out whether ay actions are required to safety manage asbestos in the property. The landlord must inform the resident whether it intends to follow the recommendations identified in the survey and provide a timeframe for needed works.	No later than 13 May 2026
3	Apology order The landlord must apologise in person to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. 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 13 May 2026
4	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150, made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a leak and associated repairs. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of ongoing damp and mould. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of asbestos in the property. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.	No later than 13 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord contact the resident about the damage she reported to the kitchen floor and an extension leave during the period she was in temporary accommodation.
We recommend the landlord confirm to the resident whether it has acted on the environmental health recommendations relating to the category 1 hazard associated with the communal entry system.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 January 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord to raise concerns. She said: There had been damp and mould in the property since she moved in, in 2022, and this continued to be an issue. Ventilation had been installed and mould washes carried out, but these had not resolved the problem. She needed to clean mould from walls, around windows, and from personal belongings 2-3 times a week. She had previously needed to replace personal items, including mattresses, pillows, duvets, and clothes, because of the mould. The landlord had ignored her son’s serious health issues despite receiving correspondence from medical professionals expressing concern about the impact of damp and mould on his condition. She had not received information about the appointments the landlord said she missed in April 2024. A plug socket in the front room was hanging off the wall when she moved in, and she paid for an electrician to disconnect it because it was a safety hazard. She needed to be moved to another property.
12 August 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint. She said: There were multiple and serious ongoing hazards at the property, and she needed to be permanently rehoused. On 15 July 2025, the landlord attended and confirmed several problems, but no repairs have been carried out, and she had not been updated. Immediate hazards included: Loose bathroom wall tiles at risk of falling. Severe damp in the bathroom and adjoining cupboard. Blown plaster in the bathroom. A hot water tap that did not work, requiring her to fill the bath using a saucepan. A leaking radiator pipe. Serious electrical hazards.
21 August 2025	The Council’s environmental health department inspected the property for hazards. The inspection found: The property was not statutorily overcrowded under room or space standards. Damp and mould growth in the kitchen and bathroom was a category 1 hazard and required the leak to be fixed, damage repaired, and mould removed. Asbestos in the floor of one bedroom (the girls’ room) was a category 1 hazard and needed to be removed and replaced. The asbestos flooring in another room (the son’s room) needed to be inspected under the carpet to check for cracking or deterioration. A join in the kitchen ceiling needed sealing to prevent the release of asbestos fibres, or the ceiling needed to be boarded and sealed. There was a category 1 hazard relating to the risk of entry by intruders because: Window handles in the kitchen were missing or broken. The communal door entry system had not worked consistently for 2 years and was not working at the time of inspection.
26 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: It had recently repaired the hot water tap and the leaking radiator pipe. Due to the scale of the remaining works, the resident would need to move into temporary accommodation for approximately 2 weeks and would then be expected to move back. While the resident was in temporary accommodation, it would complete the following work: Repairs to the kitchen wall caused by damage from a leak in the bathroom. Repairs to the bathroom, including replacing a wall, the bath, panelling, and wall tiles. Removal and replacement of floor tiles and flooring in one bedroom. A full electrical check and any works identified. A check of windows to ensure handles and keys were functional, and repairs if needed. A damp and mould inspection and any associated works. For permanent rehousing, the resident would need to apply for a housing transfer on medical grounds, and it provided information on how to do this. The housing management officer would remain in contact her. It upheld the complaint due to poor communication and apologised.
26 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had treated the issue solely as a repair matter, despite medical evidence showing the property was not suitable for her son.
5 September 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: The stage 1 response had adequately addressed the complaint. Once repairs were completed, the property would be free from hazards. If the resident needed help applying for a transfer on medical grounds, the housing management officer would assist.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to this Service. She said: She did not feel the property was safe due to ongoing damp and mould and her son’s medical needs. She did not trust that the planned repairs would address the underlying causes of damp and mould. The landlord treated the complaint as solely about repairs, rather than as a matter of the property not being medically suitable for his son.
5 January 2026	The resident moved back into the property following the works. She said that damp and mould remained in the property.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident asked to be permanently rehoused based on medical grounds. In addition to raising concerns about hazards in the home, she said she needed a bigger space so her son could have his own room and to accommodate his medical equipment.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said once it had completed repairs the property would be free from hazards and safe for the resident and her family to return to. The landlord also provided advice and offered support to help her apply to the Council for a move based on medical needs. This response was reasonable and we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling a leak and associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours, complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, and complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. Repairs may take longer if parts need to be ordered of if multiple trades are involved.
The landlord inspected the property on 24 June 2025 and found a leak under the bath. The surveyor noted the bath tiles were loose and dangerous, and said a job needed to be raised urgently because young children under 4 used the bath. Given these safety concerns, the landlord should have treated the loose tiles as an urgent repair. It did not do so. The inspection also noted the bathroom flooring had been damaged from the leak.
A further inspection took place on 15 July 2025. The landlord identified repairs needed to address the damage caused by the leak, including replacing the wall between the kitchen and bathroom, treating damp and mould caused by the leak, and replacing the bath, wall panelling, and tiles. There was then a delay in progressing the repairs, and the resident submitted a formal complaint on 12 August 2025 because she has not heard anything. After this, the landlord began looking for temporary accommodation so the family could move out while the work was completed.
On 18 August 2025, the resident told the landlord that the bathroom tiles had fallen off the wall. The landlord advised that she could continue using the bath if the walls were kept dry. The resident said she was concerned about bathing young children without getting the walls wet, and when she attempted to do so, plaster fell into the bath. The family could not bath at home and she took herself and her 4 children to the public bathing facilities until they moved into temporary accommodation approximately 4 weeks later. Although the resident reported that she could not use the bathing facilities, there is no evidence to show the landlord took any temporary measures to make the bath safe to use while awaiting the move to temporary accommodation and the permanent repair.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure that rented homes are safe, healthy, and free from risks that could cause serious harm. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used by local authorities to assess hazards in residential properties. Landlords have a responsibility to keep homes free from category 1 hazards.
During the complaints process. The Council’s environmental health department inspected the property on 21 August 2025. It identified black mould in the kitchen and bathroom as a category 1 hazard.
After the family moved into temporary accommodation, the landlord repaired the bathroom, replaced the wall between the kitchen and bathroom, and treated the mould caused by the leak.
The landlord initially told the resident the temporary move would last approximately 2 weeks, but the works took 3 months to complete. Given the extent of the repairs identified, it was unlikely the work could be completed within 2 weeks. The landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations more accurately.
The resident raised concerns about returning to the property because she wished to be rehoused. The landlord acted reasonably by clearly explaining why she needed to be move after the repairs and arranging movers to assist.
The landlord apologised for poor communication between June and August 2025, but it did not acknowledge its wider failures. Although most of the leak-related damage has been repaired, the landlord did not act with enough urgency given the extent of the damage and the presence of a highly vulnerable child in the home. For this reason, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
The June 2026 inspection identified the bathroom flooring had been damaged by the leak. Although the landlord repaired most of the leak-related damage, it did not replace the damaged vinyl flooring, which it has already accepted is required. This work remains outstanding. We have ordered the landlord to replace the bathroom flooring.
The resident also raised concerns about damage and staining to the kitchen floor, which she said occurred while she was in temporary accommodation, and water damage to an extension lead. She provided photos of both issues and said the landlord has not resolved these concerns. We have recommended the landlord contact the resident about these issues.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £400, for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the leak. This is in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of awards for when such failures by the landlord are not appropriately acknowledged.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of ongoing damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told us she believed the ongoing damp and mould affected her son’s health. 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
The landlord’s damp, condensation, and mould policy says it will keep records of all current and previous reports of damp and mould and take a proactive approach to preventing future cases. It aims to diagnose the cause of the damp correctly and deliver solutions that address both the underlying causes and the visible symptoms.
Outside of the damp and mould caused by the bathroom leak in 2025, the resident said she had experienced damp and mould since moving into the property in 2022. The landlord installed a ventilation system in March 2023, but the resident continued to report damp and mould. As she raised damp and mould concerns in January 2025, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the issue from the beginning of 2024, which is 12 months before she attempted to raise a complaint about the issue.
On 18 March 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and provided a letter from her son’s doctor expressing concern about him being exposed to damp and mould. She said her son was repeatedly unwell and that while mould washes had taken place, the mould continued to return.
The landlord inspected the property in March 2024 and identified work to treat mould and to repoint brickwork to the front corner left of the lounge windows to address a potential underlying cause. Although this need was identified more than 2 years ago, the landlord has not completed the brickwork repair. The resident said the mould continues to return to this area.
The contractor reported attempting to attend 3 appointments in April 2024 without success and closed the job. The resident said she was not aware of specific appointments. Given the medical evidence showing significant vulnerability in the household related to damp and mould exposure, the landlord should have acted in line with its policy and been proactive in ensuring works progressed. For example, it could have had its contractor leave calling cards after a no access attendance or contacted the resident directly to understand what was preventing access. There is no evidence it did so before the job was closed, which was a failing. The resident said she only learned of the missed appointments after her MP contacted the landlord.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. Although it carried out several mould washes since 2024, including while the family was in temporary accommodation, the problem continued. The landlord did not follow through with repairs it had identified and did not take a proactive approach, as required by its policy. The resident continued to report damp and mould with no long-term resolution.
The landlord also received letters from medical specialists expressing concern about the resident’s son’s diagnosed condition and the risk posed by mould exposure. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this information or adjusted how it prioritised the case based on vulnerabilities in the household, when it should have done so.
We have ordered the landlord to complete the previously identified repair to the brickwork. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £400 in compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of awards for maladministration that had an adverse impact on the resident.
If the resident experiences damp and mould in the property going forward, she will need to raise this with the landlord so it can access whether further works are needed.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The environmental health inspection identified a category 1 risk in relation to asbestos in the flooring of one of the bedrooms (the girls’ room). The floor was not covered and parts of it were breaking off. The inspection also noted that the flooring in the son’s bedroom was tiled with the same asbestos containing material and carpeted over, and recommended this be inspected to determine with it was also cracking or deteriorating. It further recommended sealing a joint in the kitchen ceiling.
While the resident was in alternative accommodation, the landlord removed the asbestos and replaced the underfloor in the girls’ room to make it safe. In its complaint responses, the landlord agreed to put vinyl floor tiles down. However, this has not been completed.
It is not clear whether the landlord sealed the join in the kitchen ceiling during the leak-related repairs. The resident also reported cracks in the ceiling and said she was unsure whether any works may have made these worse. When the landlord inspected in January 2026, it noted cracks and advised that they were safe to monitor.
There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the flooring under the carpet in the son’s bedroom, despite this being recommended by the environmental health department. This was not reasonable, as the landlord has not confirmed whether the flooring is damaged or if there is a risk of asbestos fibres being released. Combined with its failure to complete the flooring replacement in the girls’ room, this amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.
We have ordered the landlord to lay the floor tiles in the girls’ bedroom and to complete an asbestos survey that specifically considers the flooring in the son’s bedroom, the kitchen ceiling joint, and the ceiling cracks in the property.
The resident said she remained concerned about the safety of asbestos in the property, particularly for her highly vulnerable son. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of asbestos. We have ordered it to apologise pay £200 in compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of awards for when such failures by the landlord where the landlord has failed to acknowledge or fully attempted to put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of other repairs.
Finding	No maladministration

When the resident raised a complaint, she also raised concerns about electrical hazards, a leaking radiator pipe, and a broken hot water tap. The environmental health assessment found missing window handles in the kitchen and faults with the communal door entry system, both of which were assessed as category 1 hazards. The report also recommended securely fixing the kitchen window board to prevent draughts.
The landlord repaired the leaking radiator pipe and hot water tap in August 2025. It replaced the window handles in the kitchen, secured the window board, and inspected and completed work on the electrics while the resident was in alternative accommodation. As the landlord handled these repairs in a reasonable timeframe, in line with its repairs policy, we have found no maladministration.
It is unclear whether the landlord acted on the environmental health report’s advice to arrange for the door system service engineer to reinstate the communal door entry system. The report also suggested fitting CCTV or a video doorbell type device to identify who was damaging the system. We have recommended the landlord confirm what it has done about this issue.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord. This reflects the definition contained in the Code. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident’s email to the landlord on 16 January 2025 was an expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp, mould, and other repairs over a period of more than 2 years. The landlord treated this as a service request rather than a formal complaint, even though a resident does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. In February 2025, after a further inspection, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction.
When the resident raised another complaint on 12 August 2025, the landlord responded within its policy timescales.
However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s January 2025 complaint until she submitted a further complaint 8 months later. This delay was not reasonable. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our compensation guidance for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £150 in compensation.

Learning

The landlord could learn from this case to improve how it considers medical vulnerabilities and safety risks when responding to and prioritising repairs. Ensuring that vulnerabilities are identified, recorded, and factored into repair decisions would help the landlord respond more effectively when residents faced heightened risks.
The landlord could learn from this case in how it monitors and follows up damp and mould reports, particularly where issues persist or recur. This includes ensuring that all damp and mould-related repairs are completed and that findings from previous surveys are reviewed so the underlying causes are identified and resolved. This will help it meet the requirements of ‘Awaab’s Law’.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord could improve how it keeps records of its responses to the environmental health inspection. It is unclear from its records whether certain recommendations were considered or followed, including repairs to the communal entry system and the inspection of the bedroom flooring for potential asbestos risk.

Communication

There were several periods of poor communication from the landlord, which meant the resident had to chase for updates on several occasions.