East Devon District Council (202526883)
Back to Top
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202526883 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
East Devon District Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
17 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported damp in the living room and kitchen in July 2024. The landlord inspected the property in the same month and arranged external works to address the damp. The resident then contacted the landlord on various occasions about the internal remedial works. The landlord advised us that the resident had not provided any information concerning vulnerabilities and therefore had no health or disability information for the resident on its housing system.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and associated repairs.
- We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and associated repairs.
- There was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- There was a delay in starting the external work to address the reported damp and a significant delay before the landlord arranged the internal works. The landlord was not proactive in updating the resident and she had to chase the landlord for updates. Although the landlord said it was working with its teams and contractors to improve communications, the communication problems continued. Whilst the landlord offered compensation, we do not consider it was proportionate to the failings.
- There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. However, it contacted her each time it was extending the deadline and apologised for the delay. We consider the landlord’s apology to have been a proportionate remedy to put things right.
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:
|
No later than 19 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation orders The landlord must pay the resident £575 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and associated repairs. This includes the £175 previously offered by the landlord. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 19 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should inspect the reported crack in the lime plaster on one of the living room walls and arrange appropriate repairs. It should write to the resident to advise her of the outcome of its inspection. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
17 February 2025 |
The resident made a complaint to the landlord about its response to her reports of damp, poor communication and associated repairs. |
|
28 February 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said:
|
|
2 June 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint as she said it had taken until the end of January 2025 for the landlord to complete the external works and it had not yet carried out the internal work. She said the surveyor had advised her on 14 May 2025 that he would escalate the matter but she had not received any further information. |
|
26 August 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she said:
|
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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and associated repairs |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings and plasterwork.
- The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that all repairs will either be categorised as an emergency repair, which it will respond to within 4 hours, or as a routine repair, which will be arranged at the resident’s convenience and completed within 28 working days.
- The resident contacted the landlord in July 2024 to report damp on the living room wall and in the fireplace recess. The exact date of the contact is unclear from the landlord’s records, but it arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 29 July 2024. As there was no indication that the matter was an emergency, it had therefore responded appropriately within its 28 working day timescale for non-emergency repairs.
- The surveyor confirmed there was damp present and arranged for works to be carried out. The first phase of the works involved repairs and rendering of the external walls and this was carried out from 3 to 10 December 2024. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided the resident with updates during August to November 2024. This lack of communication was unreasonable as it meant the resident was unaware of the intended work and when it would be carried out. She referred to this period in her stage 1 complaint and said its communications with her had been poor.
- We also consider the time taken for the landlord to start the external work was unreasonable. Although we understand that the landlord had to obtain quotes for the work, we consider it was unreasonable for the landlord to take 4 months to carry out the external work given that the surveyor had confirmed on 29 July 2024 that there was damp in the property.
- The resident also said in her stage 1 complaint that the contractor had left the front of the property “in a mess” during the Christmas and New Year period, including leaving dustsheets outside the property. The landlord’s records show the dustsheets were collected on or about 9 January 2025. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says: “we will clear up the working area after a repair is carried out”. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the contractor had not cleared away any left-over materials from the front of the property after completing the external work on 10 December 2024.
- As part of the external work, the contractor had taken down a low dividing wall between the resident’s property and that of her neighbour. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2025 and asked for the contractor to reinstate the wall. The contractor rebuilt the wall on 31 January 2025. It was unreasonable that the landlord took 7 weeks to reinstate the wall and did not let her know when the work would be done before she chased the landlord in January 2025.
- Part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint was that the contractor had not used matching colours when painting the resident’s and the neighbour’s properties. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the walls on 20 January 2025 and said the landlord would not repaint the complete front elevation as he said: “new paint will never perfectly match old paint”. It was reasonable that the surveyor had inspected the wall after the resident had expressed concerns that the new paint colour did not match the colour used previously. Having inspected the wall, the landlord was entitled to rely on the surveyor’s findings that it was unnecessary to repaint the front elevation of the house.
- As part of her stage 1 complaint on 17 February 2025, the resident asked when the internal work would be carried out. The landlord replied on 28 February 2025 and confirmed it had requested a quote for the internal works and would raise an order when the quote was received. Given that the landlord had confirmed in July 2024 the property was suffering from damp, it was unreasonable that 11 weeks after the completion of the external work the landlord had not yet obtained a quote for the internal work. It was again left to the resident to chase the landlord to obtain an update.
- The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 2 June 2025 as she said she was still unclear when the internal work would be done. The landlord said in its stage 2 reply dated 26 August 2025 that the contractor had now attended and was preparing a quote for the internal work. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not yet started the internal work more than 8 months after completing the external work. The landlord had apologised in February 2025 for the “stress and anxiety” caused to the resident by the delays. It was therefore aware of the impact the delays were having on her. The lack of progress demonstrated a lack of effective tracking and monitoring of the follow-on work.
- Although the landlord’s records show that it inspected the property on various occasions in 2024 and 2025, we have found that its communications were poor. The landlord was not proactive in providing progress updates to the resident and it was left to her to chase the landlord for updates. This was inappropriate given that its damp and mould policy says it will: “ensure that tenants are provided with regular updates in relation to damp and mould issues reported in their home”. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 reply that its communications had fallen short of its standards and added in its stage 2 reply that its communications had been poor.
- We have made a finding of maladministration based on the following failings:
- There was a delay in starting the external work and a lack of communication following the surveyor’s inspection in July 2024.
- The contractor did not clear up its materials at the front of the house immediately after carrying out the external work.
- There was a delay in the landlord reinstating the dividing wall between the resident’s property and next door.
- There was a significant delay in the landlord arranging the internal works following the external repairs and a lack of communication with the resident.
- When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings for the delays experienced by the resident and the poor communication. It sought to put things right by apologising for its failings, arranging for a contractor to carry out the outstanding internal repairs and by offering compensation.
- In terms of learning, the landlord said in its stage 1 reply that it was working with its teams and contractors to improve communications and provide updates more consistently. However, the resident continued to experience delays and a lack of communication following the stage 1 reply in February 2025. For example, she wrote to the landlord in June 2025 to say she was still unclear about the landlord’s progress in arranging the internal repairs.
- The landlord offered total compensation of £175 to recognise the impact of its failings on the resident. We do not consider the landlord’s offer to have been proportionate given the lengthy delays and lack of communication experienced by the resident following the surveyor’s inspection in July 2024. In particular, although the surveyor had confirmed the presence of damp in July 2024, over a year later at the time of its stage 2 reply on 26 August 2025 the landlord had not carried out all necessary works to address the damp. This is despite the resident contacting the landlord on various occasions to chase the outstanding repairs.
- In terms of the impact of the failures on the resident, she advised us that the issues had affected her mental health and caused her mental anxiety, depression and heart palpitations. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through insurers or the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option. We have, however, considered the impact on the resident in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £400, which when added to the landlord’s offer of £175 brings the total compensation to £575. We consider this sum reflects the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident because of the delays in carrying out the repairs and the landlord’s lack of communication. The sum is in line with our Compensation Guidance for cases where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident and although the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings.
- The information we received shows there were ongoing issues regarding the internal repairs following the landlord’s stage 2 reply in August 2025. This included the resident moving out of the property to allow the internal works to proceed. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we considered itwasfair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response.
- Although we have not investigated events after the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident advised us in April 2026 that although the works had been completed, there was a large crack in the lime plaster on one of the living room walls. She said the contractor had not been able to address this and it intended to report this back to the landlord. We have therefore included a recommendation for the landlord to inspect the reported crack and to arrange appropriate repairs.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding, for example, in the case of complex complaints. However, the landlord will advise the resident of the extension and will provide an indicative timescale for the response.
- The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 17 February 2025 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days on 24 February 2025. It then sent its stage 1 response on 28 February 2025, which was 4 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord had therefore responded to the stage 1 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
- The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 2 June 2025 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2025. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 August 2025, which was 58 working days after acknowledging the complaint.
- Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.We consider the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint to have been unreasonable, particularly as the resident had already experienced considerable delays with the remedial works. However, the landlord had written to the resident extending the deadline on 30 June, 27 July and 12 August 2025 and each time it had provided her with our details so she could contact us if she wished to do so. Also, the landlord used its stage 2 reply to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in responding.
- As the landlord had updated the resident about progress with the complaint and had given her the option of contacting us, we consider its apology to have been a proportionate remedy to put things right in terms of its complaint handling. We have therefore made a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Learning
- Given the issues highlighted in this report regarding communications, the landlord may wish to look at the bitesize learning on communications in our Centre for Learning.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The delays in addressing the reported damp suggests a lack of tracking and monitoring of outstanding repairs. It is particularly important for landlords to track and monitor complex repairs, particularly where follow-on works are required.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication was poor and this resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates. It is important for landlords to provide regular updates, particularly where there are delays to repairs.