Harlow District Council (202516942)

Background

1. The resident’s property is a top floor flat in a 2-storey building. She lives in the property with 3 dependent children. She and her neighbour have use of separate areas of the garden which is divided by a wire fence. The landlord owns a Local Authority Trading Company (the contractor) which provides environmental and property maintenance services. This includes housing repairs and pest control.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s handling of her reports about damp and mould.
   2. the landlord’s handling of her reports about pests in the property.
   3. the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs.
   4. the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.
   5. the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of her reports about damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in its handling of her reports of rats in the property.
   3. Service failure in its handling of bathroom repairs.
   4. No maladministration in its handling of kitchen repairs.
   5. Service failure in its handling of her complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and Mould

4. The landlord has only satisfactorily completed a mould wash according to the evidence provided. Even then, it delayed in completing these works to address the symptoms. There is no evidence it has fully completed other works identified by its damp surveyor and reported by the resident.

Rats in the property

5. The landlord delayed in sealing an identified entry point. After the resident complained, it failed to take ongoing pest control action to satisfy itself that the rats were eradicated. It also failed to mitigate the risk of mice entering from the garden area.

Bathroom repairs

6. While the landlord attended to the resident’s report about the waste stack and ceiling, it is not evident that it took all necessary action to address her concerns.

Kitchen repairs

7. The landlord completed works in response to the resident’s report about her kitchen units. While there were delays, it was not responsible for them. It also managed the resident’s expectations as to whether it would install a new kitchen.

Handling of the complaint

8. While the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in the required timeframes, it did not fully follow the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not review its prior handling of the issues complained about, address all points raised, or fully establish why the resident had escalated the complaint.

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.

9. 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 landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
10. The landlord has not provided a copy of a damp and mould policy that was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint. The policy on its website reflects its obligations under Awaab’s Law that came into effect on 27 October 2025. However, its self-assessment on damp and mould for the Ombudsman notes that it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and all repairs are delivered in line with its service standards. The self assessment further notes that “the initial survey will report on requirements, where physical work is required, a scope and schedule is developed and repairs delivered.”
11. On 6 February 2025, the resident reported damp in her property was making her and her son unwell. The landlord arranged for an independent damp surveyor to carry out an inspection on 11 February 2025. The survey was completed promptly, within a week of the resident’s report. The surveyor sent the report on 27 February 2025. It identified elevated humidity and condensation, but no water ingress. It recommended the following works:
    1. Mould washes and treatment in the kitchen, lounge, bathroom, and third bedroom.
    2. Renew the bathroom extractor fan and move it closer to the ceiling. Service the kitchen extractor fan and install it closer to the ceiling.
    3. Investigate and repair cracks in the brickwork next to the front entrance door.
    4. Plastering repairs in the hallway around the front entrance door, which may be defective.
    5. Lay additional insulation in the attic.
12. Following receipt of the report, the landlord raised repair orders. On 28 February 2025, the landlord raised an order to treat the mould with a target date of 28 March 2025. The timeframe was in line with its target to complete standard repairs within 20 working days, as stated in its Repairs Policy (dated June 2020). However, it did not complete the works until 27 May 2025. The delay in completing the works was 2 months which was unreasonable given that mould was throughout the property, including a bedroom.
13. The landlord raised a repair order on 2 March 2025 to overhaul the extractor fans by 31 March 2025. The timeframe was in line with its policy to complete standard repairs within 20 working days. Its records show that it completed the order on 13 March 2025. However, there is no evidence that any works were carried out either in line with the damp surveyor’s recommendations or otherwise. The resident has advised us the contractor attended but completed no works. If the landlord assessed that it did not need to follow the damp surveyor’s recommendation for the fans, it did not keep evidence to support its position.
14. Also, on 2 March 2025, the landlord raised an order for plastering works in hallway, next to the front door, by 31 March 2025. Again, the timeframe was in line with its policy to complete standard repairs within 20 working days. Its records show that it completed the works on 7 April 2025. This was 5 days outside the required timeframe. Furthermore, the landlord’s records show that it had to remove a radiator to complete the plastering works. The resident has advised us that the landlord has not reinstated the radiator despite her raising the issue with it. The landlord has not provided evidence that it has reinstated the radiator, therefore it is no evidence that it has satisfactorily completed all the works associated with the plastering.
15. The landlord has not provided evidence that it investigated the crack in the brickwork. In fact, it has not provided evidence that it attended on 3 April 2025 as it stated it would in the stage 1 response. This was particularly unreasonable as the landlord’s records show she had originally mentioned the crack on 6 February 2025. Moreover, the damp surveyor explicitly highlighted that a defective door or frame can lead to water ingress. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered laying new or otherwise improving the insulation in the attic to prevent mould forming in the rooms below, as recommended by the damp surveyor.
16. The resident raised further issues relating to damp when making and escalating her complaint. Specifically, she advised there was water ingress from outside entering her electrical consumer unit cupboard. The landlord advised it would replace the backboard. However, there is no evidence that it has completed these works or resolved the resident’s underlying concern about water ingress. In fact, it has advised us that it has needed to resubmit its repair request to its electrical contractor, which indicates it lost oversight of the job. This is particular unreasonable given the potential danger of water entering the electrics. In fact, the resident has advised us that the landlord taped a plastic bag over the consumer unit which can only be a temporary measure.
17. The resident also attributed blown windows to worsening damp issues. The landlord in the stage 2 response advised that it had referred this issue to an outside contractor. The resident has also advised us that the landlord told her in November 2025 that it had has taken her off a list for window replacement works. The landlord has advised is that works were cancelled as the contractor did not see blown units when it visited.  However, the landlord has not provided evidence of the contractor visit and its assessment.  It has also not provided evidence that it explained to the resident that it would not be proceeding with window works. The landlord has therefore failed to address the aspect of this complaint related to the condition of her windows.
18. In summary, with regards to the works identified at the survey, the landlord has only satisfactorily completed a mould wash according to the evidence provided. Even then, it delayed in completing these works. It has not provided evidence that it repaired the extractor fans, reinstalled the radiator in the hallway, or assessed a crack in the brickwork. It has also failed to investigate and take reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s reports about water ingress in the electrical cupboard and the condition of her windows. For these failings, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord. The resident has advised us that there is mould around the edges in every room currently. She believes this may be partly due to rats pulling up the insulation.
19. As redress, we award the resident £500 compensation. In making this award we have considered the range of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. We have considered the guidance for cases where the landlord had made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. We have also considered the elevated impact on the resident and her family from the failure to address her ongoing reports of mould.

20. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of a policy or procedure on pest control. However, its records show that its contractor has a responsibility to eradicate rats within its properties.
21. The resident reported rats in the attic space in December 2023. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended the resident’s properties 6 times between December 2023 and December 2024 to bait rats. There are also other unrecorded visits to remove rats from traps. 6 separate cases were raised and closed over this period due to no further contact from the resident.
22. On 6 February 2025, the resident reported that there had been rats in her loft for over a year. She attributed this to the overgrown condition of her neighbour’s garden which contained rats. She understood rats were entering the building and running up the cavity wall to the loft. On 7 February 2025, the contractor advised the landlord that there was a hole in the brickwork at ground level providing an entry point and which therefore needed to be repaired. The contractor advised it had previously asked the resident to report this and had also spoken to housing officers, but the hole had not been repaired. This constituted a failure by the landlord to take the identified action to eradicate the rats at that time. It indicates that no individual or team within the contractor or landlord took responsibility for ensuring the repair was completed.
23. The landlord did not raise an order to block the hole until 20 March 2025. This was 6 weeks after the resident’s further report which compounded the delay. The target completion date was 27 March 2025 in line with its policy to complete urgent repairs within 5 working days. The landlord attended on 3 April 2025. Although this was after the deadline, the landlord’s records show that it attended on 27 March 2025 to meet the target date but did not gain access for the works.
24. The damp surveyor noted the resident’s reports of rats. It recommended a CCTV survey of the drainage system for entry and exit points. Although the landlord raised an order for a survey, it has provided no evidence that one was carried out. If it decided not to proceed with the survey, it did not keep a record to support the decision. It therefore did not keep an audit trail on the CCTV issue which was inappropriate.
25. In the stage 1 response, the landlord stated it would further bait the loft on 3 April 2025. The landlord has not provided evidence that it attended on this date or thereafter to carry out further baiting. The resident has advised us that the contractor has not returned since filling in the hole. This was despite her phoning the landlord to report that rats were still in attic and to ask for the old baits to be removed. She further states she has removed dead rats herself as the contractor has not returned. While stating it would further bait the loft on 3 April 2025, the landlord failed to devise a programme for further pest control action or reviewing the situation. Nor did it manage the resident’s expectations by further contacting her about this issue, ether proactively or in response to any further contact from her.
26. The landlord also committed to speak to the neighbour on 14 April 2025 to discuss the condition of their garden. The landlord has advised us it raised the issue of an untidy garden with the neighbour and updated the resident, whose garden it also saw to be untidy. However, it has not provided contemporaneous evidence of these actions which is a shortcoming in its record keeping. The landlord has also not provided evidence it took further action to ensure the neighbour and the resident maintained the garden. This was a missed opportunity to mitigate the risk that the condition of the garden area encouraged the presence of rats which entered entering the resident’s property.
27. In summary, the landlord delayed in sealing an identified entry point. After the resident complained, it failed to take ongoing pest control action to satisfy itself that the rats were eradicated. It also failed to mitigate the risk of rodents entering from the garden area. In fact, in responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord relied on the fact that it had filled a hole in the brickwork. It failed to recognise that the resident’s concern about rats were unresolved and ongoing. Given these failings we find that there was maladministration by the landlord.
28. As redress we award the resident £250 compensation. In making this award, we have considered the range of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. We have considered the guidance for cases where the landlord had made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

29. The landlord’s Repairs Policy (June 2020) confirms its statutory responsibility to keep the structure of the building in good repair. This includes floors and ceilings. The policy also highlights that the landlord is responsible for kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
30. An internal email sent on 26 February 2025 noted that the resident had chased up the outcome of the damp survey. It noted the resident had stated that the mould was now black in the bathroom. On the same day, the landlord raised an order to “replaster ceiling around stack pipe that’s crumbling” along with the works in the hallway. The target date was 27 May 2025, 60 working days. This timeframe is not stated in the landlord’s Repairs Policy (June 2020) or the one published on its website currently. We recommend that the landlord ensures that its policies and procedures are updated to contain all applicable timeframes for responsive repairs so there is clarity and transparency.
31. Pending the damp and mould works, in her complaint of 20 March 2025, the resident stated the ceiling had partly collapsed due to damp and a damaged waste stack that was falling down. The contractor reported on or around 8 April 2025 that “Ceiling in the bathroom is complete. Plastered around soil stack blended to match existing”. The contactor attended within the required timeframe for the works order. The resident has confirmed to us that the contractor plastered around the soil stack.
32. However, the contractor’s note does not confirm whether it carried out any other works to the ceiling or that it assessed condition of the ceiling. This was unreasonable given the resident’s concern about the safety of the ceiling. Moreover, the resident indicated that the ceiling was damp, which contributed to it partly collapsing. As such, it was all the more unreasonable that the landlord did not renew the bathroom extractor fan as recommended. The resident has told us that the ceiling is still insecure. She further said that she treated mould on the ceiling 4 months ago herself, but that mould is returning.
33. In summary, while the landlord attended to the resident’s report about the waste stack and ceiling, it is not evident that it took all necessary action to address her concerns about the bathroom. For this reason, we find that there was service failure by the landlord. As redress, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation. In making this award we have applied the maximum amount of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure.

34. As noted, the landlord’s Repairs Policy also highlights that the landlord is responsible for kitchen and bathroom fixtures. Regarding kitchen units, it will complete “minimal holding repairs only” as it carries out “significant works through [a] planned programme”.
35. In her complaint, the resident said her kitchen had outdated fittings, missing doors, mould and damage. On 1 April 2025, the landlord raised an order to repair the kitchen cabinets, including a unit with a missing door. The target completion date was 30 June 2025. The stage 2 response noted the resident cancelled the original appointment date of 29 April 2025. The landlord’s records show that the resident cancelled the rescheduled date of 27 May 2025 due to illness. She also did not provide access on the next appointment date of 25 June 2025 due to work commitments. While the missed appointments added to the length of time for repairs to be completed, they were beyond the control of the landlord.
36. The landlord raised a new repair order for the kitchen cabinets on 28 July 2025. It instructed the contractor to attend within the school holidays as the resident was at home. Its records show that the contractor attended on 19 August 2025 and installed a new door as per the order.
37. In her complaint, the resident advised that the landlord informed her when she moved in that it would install a new kitchen. The landlord received no evidence to confirm this. Its responsibility under the Repairs Policy is to keep the kitchen in good repair. In responding to the resident’s complaint, it advised the kitchen had been renewed in 2013, therefore would not be renewed at that time. It therefore addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
38. In summary, the landlord completed works in response to the resident’s report about her kitchen units. While there were delays, it was not responsible for them. It also managed the resident’s expectations as to whether it would install a new kitchen. Taken altogether, there was no maladministration regarding this complaint.

39. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and send the response within 10 working days. It should acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3 working days and send the response within 20 working days. The timeframes for responding are in line with the Code.
40. After the resident submitted a complaint on 20 March 2025, the landlord responded on 2 April 2025. This was within the required timeframe. However, the response focussed on the action the landlord would now take to resolve the issues raised; it did not review its prior handling of the issue. As such, it did not fully address the complaint. The landlord also did not follow the Code which states, “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken” as well as the action it intends to take, to put things right.
41. The Code also states, “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition”. However, there were also aspects of the complaint that the landlord failed to address, as per the Code. This included the resident’s statement that the landlord had told her it would replace her bathroom when she moved in. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s request to provide evidence to support its advice that there was no asbestos in the bathroom ceiling.
42. The stage 2 response was sent on the target date of 7 May 2025. In the stage 2 response, the landlord noted that the resident said the stage 1 response “addressed nothing”. The landlord provided an update on the issues complained about at stage 1 from checking its records. However, the Code states that “landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.” In this case, the landlord did not seek to establish exactly why the resident had escalated the complaint, and the outcome she was seeking. This was not consistent with the Code. Had it done so, it could have identified unresolved issues such the reinstallation of the hallway radiator, rats in the attic, works to the extractor fans, and water ingress in the electrical consumer unit.
43. The landlord in its complaint responses also noted that the damp surveyor had noted another issue when attending. This was a partition wall that the resident had installed which raised fire safety concerns. The landlord asked the resident to remove the wall within 28 days. Landlords have a responsibility to manage fire hazards in their properties. However, in this case, the landlord instructed the resident to remove the wall within its response to a complaint about other issues. This could be perceived as the landlord wishing to focus on the resident’s actions to deflect from her complaint. Compounding this, it failed to consider the resident’s claim that, in fact, it had previously authorised the wall.
44. In summary, while the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in the required timeframes, it did not fully follow the Code. It did not review its prior handling of the issues complained about, address all points raised, or fully establish why the resident had escalated the complaint. For these reasons, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
45. As redress, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation. In making this award we have applied the maximum amount of compensation in our Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure.

Learning

Communication and Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management notes that “Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Clear information is readily available to any member of staff who becomes responsible for a particular matter, easing handovers between staff. Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions, or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation – this impacts negatively on its credibility and relationships with the requestor.”
47. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
48. In this case, the resident disputed that the landlord completed all the works that it stated it would. She has also questioned the effectiveness of some works. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what works were completed at certain visits. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord had better followed the advice and recommendations in our spotlight reports.