Gravesham Borough Council (202502734)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow, where she experienced damp and mould. She was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in resolving the issue and the damage it caused to her belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. reports of damp and mould
   2. complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress to put things right.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord didn’t respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process within the relevant policy timescales. It failed to use its complaints process to provide advice regarding the resident’s concerns that the damp and mould had caused damage to her personal items.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we didn’t investigate

7. The resident said during the complaint process that she had experienced damp and mould for 4 years. While this background helps explain the situation, our investigation focused on how the landlord handled the more recent reports from 2024 onwards, as it considered these in its complaint responses. This is because residents are normally expected to raise complaints within 12 months of the issue arising. Doing so gives the landlord a fair chance to deal with the problem while it is still current, and the evidence is available to reach an informed decision.
8. The resident said that the damp and mould damaged some of her belongings. While she raised this at stage 1, she did not escalate her concerns to stage 2. This issue has not yet gone through the landlord’s complaints process. To be fair, this investigation only looks at matters that completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 9 September 2025. The landlord must have a fair chance to investigate and respond to any concerns before we are involved. Any issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and processed as a new formal complaint if required.
9. The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an 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 the distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

10. In April 2025, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the damp and mould in the property and the damaged caused. The landlord acknowledged this as a complaint, but dealt with it as a service request.
11. Following the residents contact in April 2025, it was fair that the landlord explained that it had asked its contractor to attend in November 2024. This was following remedial works after her report in March 2024. This was in line with its Damp and Mould Policy. This says after any repairs it completes relating to damp and mould, it will follow this up with a visit, to understand if it should provide further support.
12. However, the contractor had been unable to attend due to no response from the resident. The contractor had made attempts to contact her 3 times up until the end of January 2025. It was reasonable the landlord wrote to the resident in February 2025 asking her to contact the contractor directly so it could complete a survey. This showed the landlord had taken her reports seriously, and was committed to attend so it could understand why the damp and mould had continued.
13. The resident did not contact the landlord again until April 2025 confirming she still had damp and mould in her home, the landlord requested she contact the contractor as requested in its letter in February 2025. When the resident contacted the contractor, she made an appointment for 2 May 2025. Due to no access, the contractor attended on 8 May 2025.
14. The contractor survey report confirmed the landlord needed to complete the following work:
    1. renew shower tray sealant
    2. it needed to lift the vinyl floor tiles in the kitchen and bathroom and dry them with a dehumidifier
    3. it needed to clear the kitchen and bathroom gutters
    4. to adjust the bathroom door so it could be shut when bathing
    5. a mould wash was required for the bedroom and living room walls
    6. it needed to clear the channel drain at the front of property
    7. the resident needed to follow the ventilation and heating advice provided
15. The Damp and Mould Policy says it will communicate its findings and recommended solutions, so it was positive the landlord confirmed the above in a letter to the resident on 26 June 2025. It also highlighted the actions the resident should take to help resolve the damp and mould. The evidence shows the landlord raised the repairs on 15 July 2025, and scheduled for the 12 to 14 August 2025, in line with its Repair Policy timescales of 28 working days for routine repairs. These were later rescheduled at the resident’s request. This showed the landlord was committed to completing the recommended repairs but at a time to suit her needs.
16. When the resident had requested help from us as no work had progressed, the landlord responded at stage 1. The response was fair as it acknowledged previous delays, and outlined the steps it had taken since to put it right.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable because it acknowledged and apologised that the resident had reported damp and mould in 2021, which it should have addressed in its earlier response. This showed the resident that it understood the context of her concerns and the issues she had been facing.
18. When the resident had expressed concerns about being without a shower for a week due to the remedial work, it was appropriate that the landlord spoke to her directly to understand her situation. It took steps to consider her caring responsibilities, and passed this on to its contractors. This was in line with its Repairs Policy which says it will aim to deliver services that do not unfairly discriminate on any basis.
19. It recognised the timescale for the work would impact the resident, and cause inconvenience. To put it right, in line with its Compensation Policy, it offered acceptable reimbursement to cover travel costs to alternative accommodation, and offered a further discretionary amount for inconvenience. The resident confirmed to us the landlord paid all compensation commitments.
20. The landlord completed the work identified in the survey in October 2025, around 4 months after the landlord became aware of the recommendations. During this period, the landlord also decided to carry out a full bathroom renewal rather than just the shower repair. Under its Repairs Policy, this type of work is classed as a major repair, with an expected completion timeframe of 3 months. While the works slightly exceeded this timescale, some delay was due to uncertainty about how the shower repair would affect the resident, her understandable reluctance to proceed, and the decision to upgrade the bathroom. In the circumstances, the landlord’s response was reasonable.

21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. Our findings are:
22. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
23. When the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the service received by the landlord in April 2025, the landlord acknowledged it with a complaint reference number within 3 days, in line with its policy. However, the landlord did not provide a response within the expected timescale. This left the resident without a formal response and caused inconvenience, as she had to approach us for assistance.
24. After we contacted the landlord on 29 July 2025, it acknowledged the complaint again within 5 working days. It responded within 10 working days, in line with its policy timescales.
25. At stage 1, the resident raised concerns about damage caused by damp and mould. The landlord did not acknowledge her concern or provide practical advice on how to progress the issue. Its failure to do this, was a missed opportunity to address the matter within the complaints process and refer to the appropriate liability insurer.
26. The landlord acknowledged her request to escalate her complaint within 5 working days, and it responded within 20 working days. This was in line with its policy timescales for stage 2 of its process.
27. There was a delay in the landlord responding formally to the resident’s complaint, but the delay did not impact the overall handling of the case for the resident. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge this delay in its responses. It also caused confusion by initially acknowledging the complaint but not providing a formal response.

Learning

28. The landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the residents reports of damp and mould. But it could have improved its approach by considering her concerns about damage and provided appropriate advice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. We did not find any record keeping issues in this case.

Communication

30. Overall, communication with the resident was good. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports and kept her updated on its findings and required jobs.
31. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations by acknowledging her initial report as a complaint. It should be clear on how it will deal with a resident’s enquiry and ensure it is in line with the Code.