Epping Forest District Council (202444384)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444384

Epping Forest District Council

24 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began in 2009. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the middle floor of a 3 storey block. The resident lives there with her daughter, who is asthmatic.
In 2021, the landlord carried out works to the exterior of the building due to concerns about rainwater entering the walls. Following this, the resident continued to report issues with damp. The landlord installed a mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) system later in 2021 to reduce condensation in the property.
The landlord raised an order for a damp and mould inspection of the property on 3 December 2024. This was in response to the resident reporting damp and mould on the walls of both bedrooms, which was causing the plasterwork to crumble. The landlord inspected the property on 18 December 2024.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord the same day. She said that the landlord’s inspection had found high moisture readings and that “there is definitely water entering the property”. She asked the landlord to provide details of the works it carried out to the building in 2021 and said she believed it had done a ‘temporary fix’, knowing that the issues were likely to return.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 January 2025. It said that:
1. It had carried out the exterior works in 2021 as a “precautionary measure” to eliminate it as a potential cause of water ingress. It had attached a copy of the relevant works orders.
2. After the works, it had found high levels of moisture in the resident’s property and installed the MVHR system to address this. The resident had not reported any damp and mould concerns since the MVHR system had been in place.
3. Its surveyor had reviewed the findings of the damp and mould inspection. They felt these were consistent with condensation caused by high humidity rather than water penetration from outside.
4. During the inspection it had noted the resident was drying clothes and using an unvented tumble dryer within the property. This would contribute to increased humidity.
5. It would arrange to inspect and service the MVHR system to ensure it was operating correctly.
6. Once it had resolved the humidity issue, it would arrange to replaster crumbling areas.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 9 January 2025. We have not been provided with a copy of her request to do so.
On 24 January 2025, the landlord sent a contractor to inspect and service the MVHR system. It found the system was working as it should but changed the settings to increase the speed and ventilation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 February 2025. It repeated that the dampness was “consistent with condensation” and it planned to service the MVHR system and ensure it was working as it should. The landlord also said it would conduct further investigations, including taking moisture readings from the sub wall behind the plaster. Finally, it proposed to install environmental sensors in the property to help the resident manage the humidity levels.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

The resident referred her complaint to us on 4 February 2025. She said the landlord had failed to acknowledge the findings of the damp and mould inspection, which said that “there is water penetrating through the walls”.
On 6 March 2025, the landlord removed a section of plaster in one of the damp areas. It took moisture readings and visibly inspected the sub wall. Based upon its findings, it ruled out water penetration as the cause of the damp. The landlord recorded that the resident asked it to leave the sub wall exposed until it next rained so she could review this.
On 4 April 2025, the resident told the landlord that she would arrange to replaster the affected walls at her own expense.

Assessment and findings

After the resident reported damp and mould in the bedrooms, the landlord appropriately raised an order for an inspection on 3 December 2024. It completed the inspection on 18 December 2024, 11 working days later. The landlord’s policies do not provide a timeframe for it to complete a damp and mould inspection. However, we consider this a reasonable response time.
The landlord’s damp and mould inspection report found there was “100% [moisture reading] from the floor and dries as you work the meter up the wall”. It also wrote that there was “water penetrating through internally”. This led the resident to link the issue back to the exterior repairs of 2021. It was for this reason that she made her complaint to the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord asserted that its report “did not say water was coming through the walls” and “did not confirm water was penetrating the walls.” However, the wording within the report did indicate this to be the case.
However, in both of its complaint responses the landlord provided clear and detailed explanations for its assessment that the damp was caused by condensation – and thus not linked to the 2021 exterior repairs.
The landlord explained that the exterior repairs were carried out as a “precautionary measure” as the damp in the property at that time had been towards the top of the walls. It said that the exterior works had “made no difference” to the damp, with the situation only improving once it installed the MVHR system. The landlord explained that the position of the damp at the base of the walls, and lack of reports of similar issues from the flat above the resident’s, indicated that there was not water ingress from above such as rainfall.
Despite this, the landlord reasonably agreed to conduct further investigations by removing plaster to examine the sub wall. It did this on 6 March 2025 and its findings supported its position that the damp was caused by condensation. We note the resident told us that the damp and mould appear only during the winter months, which is also consistent with the landlord’s diagnosis.
When reporting its findings from 6 March 2025, the landlord recommended that “another 3-stage mould wash should be completed on the 2 bedrooms”. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord followed up on this. On 16 April 2025, the resident told us that the landlord “has not carried out any mould treatment…and there is continued growth”.
The resident had removed the mould herself prior to the landlord’s inspection of 18 December 2024, so it was reasonable for the landlord not to arrange a mould wash at that time. However, based on its recommendation it is evident that by 6 March 2025 the mould had returned.
Considering the mould was in the bedroom of an asthmatic child, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged a mould wash. Its failure to do so indicates it did not appropriately consider the vulnerabilities within the household as part of its response.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 December 2024, its surveyor completed a ‘desktop analysis’ of its damp and mould inspection report. As established above, they determined that the damp was likely due to condensation in the property. They noted the MVHR system should prevent this and said the landlord should arrange to have it inspected.
The landlord raised an order for a contractor to inspect and service the MVHR system and extractor fans in the property on 24 December 2024. Whilst the landlord took until 6 January 2025 to update the resident of this, at least part of this delay would have been due to its service closing over the Christmas period.
The landlord’s repairs policy says its will complete routine repairs within 30 working days. Its contractor attended on 24 January 2025 and met this timescale. The contractor serviced and adjusted the MVHR to increase the ventilation it provides. They also recommended that the landlord renew the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord raised a repair order for this on 6 February 2025 and completed it on 12 March 2025, again meeting its repair timescale.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that its damp and mould inspection report had noted the resident was drying clothes on an airer and using an unvented tumble dryer. It explained that these were contributors to the humidity in the property and provided the resident with a leaflet giving advice on reducing condensation.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should avoid using language that leaves resident’s feeling blamed. However, it recommends that landlords take reasonable steps in partnership with residents where occupancy factors are contributing to damp and mould. It is our view that the landlord’s approach was reasonable and reflected the spirit of this recommendation.
This was further evidenced in its stage 2 complaint response, where the landlord proposed to install environmental sensors in the property to help the resident manage humidity. The resident accepted this offer but has said that the landlord never followed up on it to install the sensors.
However, the landlord has provided an email sent to the resident on 30 April 2025, in which it attempted to arrange installation of the sensors. It said the resident did not reply to this, nor to 2 phone calls it made about the matter. Therefore, on balance we find the landlord did make reasonable efforts to follow through on its offer.
We note also that the resident declined the landlord’s offers to replaster both the section of plaster it removed to investigate the sub wall, and the crumbling walls in the damp areas. Whilst the resident said she would arrange these works herself, it is unclear if she has since done so. Due to this, we have made a recommendation below for the landlord to contact her and confirm that she does not require it to carry out any plastering in the bedrooms.
In summary, the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation of the damp and mould in the property. Its position that the issue was related to condensation was evidence based. The landlord took appropriate steps to review and improve ventilation in the property and help the resident reduce humidity. However, it failed to follow its own recommendation and carry out a mould wash of the affected area, despite it being aware of the vulnerabilities in the household. Due to this we make a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure in not carrying out the mould wash.
2. Contact the resident to check whether a mould wash is still required, and if so, raise an order for this.
The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with these orders to us.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord considers implementing a stand alone policy to provide a comprehensive, and consolidated framework for its response to damp and mould. This is particularly pertinent in light of the requirements of Awab’s Law which comes into force in October 2025.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to check that she has had the bedroom walls replastered and still does not require its assistance with this.