Charnwood Borough Council (202336968)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336968

Charnwood Borough Council

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of damp in the bathroom and kitchen.
2. advice about internal doors.
3. communication about replacing the kitchen.
4. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the 3-bedroom, semi-detached house with her 3 children since November 2019. The resident has vulnerabilities, including depression and learning difficulties, which are recorded on the landlord’s system.
Between August 2021 and February 2022, the records show the resident was in contact with the landlord about damage to her kitchen units and it potentially renewing them. She also reported problems with the hinges on the internal doors. During this period, the resident made 2 complaints about the time it was taking the landlord to deal with these issues. It responded at the informal stage of its complaints process by confirming dates for investigations and/or repairs. The evidence shows it attended these, but what it found and the repairs it completed are unknown.
The resident reported in November 2022 that her bathroom floor was damaged by damp and inside a kitchen unit was wet. After initial inspections to check for leaking pipes, the landlord carried out a more detailed inspection in early February 2023. This identified some repair issues that could be causing the damp problems. It also recommended a further specialist damp and mould inspection.
On 27 March 2023, the resident complained by email, and later added in a telephone call with the landlord, that:
1. no repairs had been completed since 2019.
2. the damp problem affecting her bathroom and kitchen was not resolved.
3. it had advised her to remove the internal doors because of safety concerns in 2020 and had not replaced them.
4. there had been no updates about her kitchen renewal following confirmation that this would happen over a year prior.
5. she had made verbal complaints that had not been logged.

The resident said these issues had negatively impacted her mental health.

The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in mid-May 2023. Its comments formed part of a follow up response that had been issued in relation to a different complaint the resident had made. It said it was usually only able to consider complaints made within 6 months of an issue occurring but had addressed some aspects outside of this timescale. The landlord said that:
1. it was still considering the recommendations from the specialist damp and mould survey.
2. since she moved in it had completed 26 repairs at her property and listed the outstanding ones, including repairs to the kitchen units, and dates for when they would be completed.
3. there was no evidence it told the resident to remove the doors, but it would replace them and it may charge her under a clause of her tenancy agreement.
4. the relevant team would be in touch to update her about the kitchen renewal.
5. the resident had been in contact with it 40 times since 2016 and some of these were logged as complaints or requests for services it delivered.

The landlord signposted the resident to organisations for advice and support for her mental health.

On 27 June 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint because she said some repairs had not been completed. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the matter to the appropriate team. The resident chased the landlord 2 further times, before contacting our Service because she had not received a response. On 19 December 2023 we asked the landlord to send a final response to the complaint.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response dated 22 December 2022. It said the repairs listed in its initial response and those raised to address the damp problem had been completed. The landlord said there were only 3 outstanding repairs that had been or would be scheduled, including replacing the bathroom floor. It also acknowledged and apologised for failing to issue a formal stage 1 response.
The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the length of time it took to complete the repairs to her kitchen, bathroom, and internal doors. She also said she remained unhappy with the response to her requests for updates about when her kitchen would be replaced. The resident said she had been caused distress from her living situation. She is seeking compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs over a 4-year period. We recognise some of the issues the resident raised were longstanding. However, like the landlord, there are time limits on what the Ombudsman may investigate. This is because the evidence that may have existed at the time may not be available or as reliable. As such we have focused our investigation on events occurring from August 2021, when the landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen. From this point the evidence shows the resident also reported an issue with her internal doors and was then in contact reasonably regularly about these issues.
Additionally, the resident said the damp and mould problem reoccurred. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have occurred since this time will need to be raised with the landlord through a new complaint.

Damp in the bathroom and kitchen

According to the landlord’s repair policy, it aimed to complete most “routine” repairs within 28 days. Our 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould recognised that the causes of damp and mould can be complex, require multiple investigations to identify and resolve, and there may be several causes. In such cases, we would not necessarily expect the landlord to complete all repairs within its published timescales. However, we would expect the records to show the landlord was proactive in its investigations and completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe. And that it was keeping the resident updated about what was happening and when.
Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses commented on its handling of the resident’s reports of damp or included any narrative. The standard of these were inappropriate because they were not in line with those expected in its complaints policy. The policy stated responses should include relevant background and an explanation of decisions. These were standards set in the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code 2022 (the Code), which encourages best practice.
The resident reported damp affecting her bathroom floor and kitchen unit in early November 2022. It took the landlord 3 months to carry out an in-depth inspection of the problem and there was also no apparent reason for this evident in the records. This was inappropriate because it was outside of the landlord’s routine timescale.
At the inspection the landlord identified several issues that could be causing the damp problem, including a leaking external pipe. It raised some of these repairs on its system on 7 February 2023. However it then appointed a specialist contractor to complete a damp and mould survey, which took place in early May 2023. Although this added more time, it was reasonable to seek input from a specialist to ensure that all potential sources or causes of the damp and mould could be identified with a view to being remedied.
The specialist contractor made several recommendations for repairs to resolve damp in the kitchen and bathroom. This included:
1. replacing the extractor fan in the bathroom and kitchen.
2. repointing brickwork.
3. removal and drying of plaster in the kitchen.

The specialist contractor also advised the resident about ways she could help reduce condensation, such as through heating and ventilating the property appropriately.

Clearly the issue was complex, both in the causes of the damp and extent of the repair issues identified. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the recommendations for repairs, as it said it was doing in its initial response. We would expect to see though that the landlord was carrying out more straightforward repairs that may improve the situation. There is some evidence that it did this. The landlord had already repaired the leaking external pipe prior to the specialist survey. It replaced the extractor fans on 18 May 2023, only 7 days after receiving the specialist report. These repairs may have helped reduce the damp problems the resident was experiencing in the interim.
One of the reasons the resident asked to escalate her complaint in June 2023 was because some repairs were outstanding. The records confirm the landlord completed the repointing of brickwork on 2 June 2023. This was appropriate because it was on the date confirmed in the stage 1 response. The replastering of the kitchen wall was completed on 6 September 2023. While this was not a repair the landlord had confirmed a completion date for, we would still expect the evidence to show it was proactive about addressing the damp problem in the kitchen. And there was no evidence in the records or the landlord’s responses showing what it was doing to progress the work in the kitchen. Or that it was communicating with the resident about any outstanding repairs. It is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate it was proactive about meeting its repair obligations and was keeping the resident updated.
Once the landlord was satisfied the causes of the damp had been addressed, we would expect to see it completed repairs to the kitchen unit and floor within a reasonable timescale. The evidence shows the kitchen base unit was replaced in a reasonable time, at the same time it replastered the wall. However, the bathroom floor was replaced on 18 January 2024, more than 6 months after most of the structural repairs were completed. There was no apparent reason for this delay in the evidence shared. The stage 2 response from late December 2023 referred to this incorrectly as a “new” repair, when in fact the landlord had raised the works order for this following its February 2023 inspection. As such, the landlord cannot demonstrate it completed this repair in a reasonable timeframe.
We have found maladministration in the response to the damp repairs because there were delays and the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident. The landlord then failed to investigate her concerns through its complaints process. As a result, it also missed the opportunity to identify failings in its handling of matters and, importantly, to try to put things right for the resident. To remedy this, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the distress she was caused. The amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance, which the landlord’s compensation policy states it looks to follow.
In response to our request for information, the landlord advised us that it had already made improvements to its repairs service, including the creation of a specialist team to oversee the progression of repairs. It also said it would look to improve the standard of its post completion records. We are satisfied that the landlord has reflected on its handling of this case and the improvements it has made will help avoid a repeat the things that went wrong in this case.

Internal doors

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is not responsible for repairs that the resident has caused by deliberate action.
According to the available evidence, the resident reported on 22 February 2022 that the internal doors had been replaced by the previous tenant, the hinges were weak, and a bedroom door had come entirely off. In this case, the landlord had an obligation to repair the doors. The repair logs confirm it did so on 10 March 2022, but not what exact works were carried out. We have seen no reason to dispute that the agreed repairs were completed because the resident contacted the landlord subsequently to ask it to replace the doors with fire doors. Based on the records, she did not report that the doors were damaged and/or missing. While we have seen no clear evidence her request to replace the doors was directly addressed, as it should have been, there was no obligation for the landlord to install fire doors in the resident’s property.
There is no evidence that we have seen that the landlord advised the resident to remove the doors. Or that it had assumed responsibility for replacing them after they had been removed by the resident. As such, the landlord’s response to this aspect was appropriate because it is supported by the evidence.
Given our findings, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s advice about her internal doors.

Kitchen renewal

In her complaint the resident said she had been told her kitchen would be renewed at a previous inspection. Based on the records, the inspection appears likely to be the condition survey the landlord completed on 13 August 2021. This found that some of the units were missing doors and were damaged. As the type of kitchen was discontinued, the surveyor recommended it be replaced.
The resident then contacted the landlord for an update about 2 weeks later. She said she had been told her kitchen would be replaced. According to the landlord’s records, it decided not to replace the kitchen because it was still within the 20-year lifecycle its home standard sets for its components. This timeframe is in line with the government’s Decent Home Standard, which expects facilities, such as kitchens, to be “reasonably modern”. There was no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord communicated its decision to the resident. Similarly, there is no clear evidence that it told her, at that time, that it would renew the kitchen.
The landlord completed repairs to the kitchen units in March 2022. This was in line with its repair obligations. However, there is no record of what repairs were completed at the appointment. As such, we only have the August 2021 inspection findings to draw from. We also have a note referred to earlier of the resident reporting the base unit being damp in November 2022. As well as findings from an inspection in February 2023, which noted a cupboard door needed to be rehung and a base unit replaced. These records indicate it is more likely than not that the landlord completed works to the unit doors but did not replace the damaged unit identified in the condition survey. This is a failing.
Prior to the stage 1 response, the landlord assessed the condition of the kitchen again. The decision to inspect the kitchen further was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord was also entitled to agree further repairs, over replacement, as its obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain. It decided there was no cause to replace the entire kitchen. Instead, it identified repairs to a unit door and that a unit base needed to be replaced. The initial response said the resident would be updated about its decision and the stage 2 response was silent on this issue. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident was informed about its decision. The Code expects that where an action is confirmed in a complaint response, it is seen through to completion. We are unable to establish if the lack of evidence is due to a record keeping failing or because the landlord did not update the resident. Either way, it is a failing that the landlord cannot show it communicated a decision on the kitchen renewal.
Based on the evidence, there was service failure in the landlord’s communication over its decision not to renew the resident’s kitchen. We have ordered it to pay compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, for the time and trouble this has caused the resident in chasing the matter up.

Associated complaint

At the time of the issues concerned in this report, the landlord had a 3-stage complaints process. This included a stage 0 where it aimed to resolve an issue informally within 10 working days of it being raised. The evidence shows the resident complained on 10 September 2021, saying that she wanted an earlier appointment date. The landlord responded in writing on 3 November 2021, around 18 working days over its published timescale. This was inappropriate, particularly given the outcome the resident was seeking. It also gave no details about if and how the resident could escalate her concerns if she remained unhappy. Again, this was not compliant with the complaints policy.
The resident raised a further complaint on 24 February 2022 about the outstanding repairs to her kitchen and the internal doors. According to its policy, it should have escalated the resident’s concerns about the kitchen repairs to stage 1 and issued a formal response. However, it addressed this informally again. This was inappropriate because it was not in line with its complaints policy. There is also no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident was advised she could escalate her complaint if she remained unhappy. Again this was not in line with its process at the time. It was also unfair to the resident because she lost an opportunity to escalate her concerns about the kitchen sooner.
In January 2023, the landlord updated its complaints policy and process to a 2-stage formal process. As acknowledged already by the landlord, it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint about the repairs under its formal complaints process. Had it done, it would have been required to respond to her concerns within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales were in line with the ones encouraged by the Code. It has not been possible to determine by how long it exceeded both timescales. For example, the stage 2 response was delayed by as much as 5 months. It was appropriate, therefore, for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its failings in its final response. However, there is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord considered the impact on the resident of not following its complaints process, and whether it warranted a financial remedy under its compensation policy. This was that its failure to progress the complaint led to her having to wait much longer than she should have to exhaust the complaints process.
The standard of the investigations and the responses did not meet those the landlord set for itself or that were encouraged in the Code. Neither showed that the landlord had investigated the resident’s concerns because of the lack of detail. It also failed to show it took learning from its acknowledged failure to escalate the complaint, which is not in keeping with the spirit of the Code. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered it to pay compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.
The Code became a legal requirement from 1 April 2024, after the complaints process in this case ended. This means that landlords are required by law to follow it. Therefore, no order in relation to learning has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp in the bathroom and kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s advice about the internal doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s communication about the kitchen renewal.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to show it has complied with the following orders to:
1. apologise in writing for the delays and poor communications in its response to the damp and kitchen renewal issues.
2. pay the resident compensation of £500, made up of:
  1. £200 for the distress, worry, time, and trouble caused to the resident from the failings in progressing the damp investigations and repairs.
  2. £100 for the distress, worry, time, and trouble caused to the resident from the failings in the communication about the kitchen renewal.
  3. £200 for the distress, time and trouble arising from the complaint handling failings.
3. write to the resident confirming a position on the kitchen renewal.

Recommendations

In January 2024 we published our spotlight report on ‘attitudes, respect, and rights’. This highlighted learning from our casework about treatment of residents with vulnerabilities. The findings in this investigation are consistent with examples of poor practice in not raising awareness of the complaints procedure or escalating complaints. We encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations made in our report to help improve how it recognises and supports vulnerable residents who want to complain about its service.