Epping Forest District Council (202447757)

Decision
Case ID	202447757
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Epping Forest District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 November 2025

Background

The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a residential block. The resident has a hearing impairment and mobility issues. The resident’s daughter acted as her in representative in her complaint to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to mould in the property.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to mould in the property.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to inspect the walls of the property, despite its damp and mould inspection form having a section for this. This was a missed opportunity to assess a potential structural issue which may have contributed to the formation of mould.
The landlord handled the complaint in keeping with its policy and the requirements of our complaint handling code (the Code).

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: 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 11 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to comprehensively inspect the external walls. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 11 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection should be completed by a suitably qualified individual. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that it: Inspects the external walls of the property and takes surface temperature readings. Produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The surface temperature of the walls. Whether this is likely to be a contributing factor to mould in the property. Whether it recommends further assessment/inspection of the walls such as inspection of any cavities.	No later than 11 December 2025
4	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the extractor fans in the property are serviced promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or The steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 11 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We also recommend that the landlord obtains an energy performance certificate (EPC) for the property and provides a copy to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 January 2025	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She complained that her kitchen sink was flooding and there was mould throughout the property.
5 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that: It had cleared the blockage to the sink, and a further one in the shower, on 3 February 2025. It had arranged a damp and mould inspection for 11 February 2025.
13 February 2025	The resident’s daughter escalated the complaint to stage 2. She expressed dissatisfaction with the findings of the landlord’s damp and mould inspection.
25 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response it said that: Its inspection had not found any indications of water penetration. “The mould growth is typical of appearance and location of condensation”. It felt the property would benefit from being ‘decluttered’ and the “unvented dryer currently located in the hallway should be used minimally”. It recommended that it proceed with completing the mould wash it had raised following the inspection.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 25 February 2025. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was “blaming” her for the mould and had failed to find the root cause. The resident did not express any dissatisfaction with the landlord’s resolution of the blocked sink.

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	Response to mould
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident has said that she has experienced leaks, damp and mould in the property since 2020. In 2022, we determined a previous complaint about similar matters – which she had also referred to us.
The Code allows landlords to exclude matters arising over 12 months prior to a complaint from its complaints process. This is reflected in the landlord’s complaints policy which says that residents “must make your complaint as soon as possible, and within 12 months of the events occurring, otherwise we will not be able to investigate the matter.”
We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported mould in the property to the landlord in the 12 months prior to her complaint. Therefore, our investigation of its response to the mould will start at the point of complaint.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s records show that it raised a works order for a damp and mould inspection on 24 January 2025 – the day after the resident made her complaint. It booked the inspection for 11 February 2025. This was 13 working days after the resident reported the mould via her complaint. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timescale for it to complete inspections, however we do not consider 13 working days to have been unreasonable.
The landlord completed the damp and mould inspection on 11 February 2025 as scheduled. Its inspection report concluded that “all moisture content reading test came back dry so I do not believe the issue is penetrating moisture.” In its stage 2 complaint response, then landlord concluded that “the mould growth is typical of appearance and location of condensation”. It described this as an “internal issue” where airborne moisture was attracted to cold surfaces and poorly ventilated areas. We have not seen any evidence to dispute this finding.
The resident’s daughter escalated the complaint 2 days after the inspection, due to its findings. It is therefore evident that the landlord had shared the outcome of its inspection with the resident by this point. This was good practice in keeping with the recommendations of our Spotlight report on damp and mould.
The landlord recommended that the resident “decluttered” the property. It reasonably agreed to assist her in disposing of white goods stored in the living room and bedroom. The landlord also recommended that the resident limited the use of the unvented tumble dryer in the property’s hallway. This was reasonable advice to increase air flow and minimise airborne moisture. While the resident described this as ‘blaming’ her for the mould, we do not find that the landlord delivered its recommendations in such a manner.
On 18 February 2025, the landlord raised a works order for a mould wash to all affected areas of the property. This had been recommended by its inspection report. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident’s daughter on 24 February 2025 to schedule an appointment for this, however she “asked why we kept calling and disconnect phone call”. Due to this, the landlord cancelled the order.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord urged the resident’s daughter to arrange for it to complete the mould wash. Its records show that it also attempted to call her a further 4 times between 11 March and 28 March 2025, leaving voicemail messages. We consider that in doing so, it made reasonable efforts to arrange the work.
On its inspection form, the landlord noted that the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans both required cleaning. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange to service the fans, particularly considering the resident has advised us she has mobility issues which restrict her ability to do this. A build up of dust within an extractor fan can reduce its effectiveness at ventilating and contribute to mould forming. We have made an order for this above.
We note also that the landlord’s damp and mould inspection form contains a section concerning the wall structure and insulation. This was not completed for its inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this. Considering it had identified ‘cold surfaces’ as a contributory factor to the mould, it would have been appropriate to inspect the external walls.
Due to an “equipment malfunction”, the landlord recorded that it was “unable to test surface temperatures” of the walls during its inspection. We therefore feel it has not conducted sufficient investigations to discount the external walls as a contributory factor to the damp and mould. Due to this we make a finding of service failure and order compensation of £100, in keeping with our remedies guidance.
We note also that the property does not have an EPC registered on the Government’s database. This is not legally required unless the property is let to a new tenant, and the legislation was not in place when the resident’s tenancy began. However poor energy efficiency can be a factor in residents being unable to adequately heat and ventilate their homes. Therefore, we have made a recommendation above for the landlord to obtain an EPC and provide the resident with a copy of this

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it.
2. Provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
3. Acknowledge a stage 2 request within 5 working days.
4. Provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within the timescales listed in its policy.
The landlord has not provided us with evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint or escalation request. However, its stage 1 complaint response mentioned that the complaint handler had spoken to the resident’s daughter about the complaint on 24 January 2025 – the day after the resident logged the complaint.
Likewise, in the stage 2 complaint response, the complaint handler referred to having visited the property and had a “face-to-face conversation” with the resident’s daughter. It is therefore apparent that the resident’s daughter was aware the landlord had received, and was investigating, the complaint at both stages.
Due to this, we do not believe there to have been any significant detriment caused if the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint. We therefore make a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

Landlords should ensure that they have exhausted all possible investigations of structural defects when diagnosing the causes of damp and mould. This will ensure diagnoses are fully informed and robust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should ensure that it completes all applicable sections of its damp and mould inspection form for each inspection. Any areas that are not applicable to an individual inspection should be clearly marked as such. This will evidence that it has exhausted all lines of enquiry in reaching its diagnosis of the issues.

Communication

Due to the relatively brief timeframe covered by this complaint, there was limited communication between the parties. However, it is apparent that the landlord’s complaint handlers proactively communicated with the resident’s daughter to discuss the complaint and arrange appointments for works.
The landlord also shared the findings of its damp and mould inspection with her in a timely manner. Its stage 2 response appropriately explained these whilst avoiding apportioning or inferring blame.