Kingston upon Hull City Council (202515680)

Decision
Case ID	202515680
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Kingston upon Hull City Council
Landlord type	Local authority
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	29 May 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about a wet room leak and a blocked drain, which she said affected her home and garden. She also said the hot water scalded her hands. She told the landlord she had hearing difficulties, which meant she preferred to communicate through email.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with her reports:
1. Of a leak from the wet room, which she said caused damp and mould.
2. Of a blocked drain.
3. That the hot water was too hot.
We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of a leak from the wet room.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of a blocked drain.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports that the hot water was too hot.
4. Service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right

Summary of reasons

The landlord responded reasonably to a report of a leak in the bathroom, as it responded quickly, treated mould, and suggested repairs. It also gave the resident a reasonable explanation of why it would not replace the wet room. However, we have seen no evidence that it undertook a timely damp and mould assessment. There were failures in its communication, and it did not always meet her communication preferences.
The landlord did not meet the timescales in its repairs policy. There were delays due to staff changes and a lack of action to follow up a neighbour. There were also communication failures that delayed appointments.
The landlord did not meet its obligations to the resident to keep the installations for heating water in repair and proper working order.
There was a minor delay at stage 1 of the complaints process. In mitigation, it told the resident there would be a delay, but it did not apologise for this in its complaint response.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This is made up of: £300 for failures in how it dealt with reports of a leak from the wet room. £300 for failures in how it dealt with reports of a blocked drain. £200 for failures in how it dealt with reports that the hot water was too hot. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any amounts already paid.	No later than 26 June 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the hot water. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. 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. Following this, it must give the resident and us a clear update in writing on what repairs it will do, if they are needed. This must include clear timeframes on when it will complete any work.	No later than 26 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 October 2024	The landlord did a survey of the resident’s wet room and found it needed to do repairs as there was water leaking into the kitchen. She cancelled the repairs and said she wanted it to install a bath instead.
11 April 2025	The resident reported a blocked external drain, which she said had waterlogged her garden.
15 April 2025	The resident complained that she could not use the shower as it caused the wet room to flood, and the damp from this caused mould. She wanted the landlord to replace the wet room with a bath. She said the hot water was too hot.
20 May 2025	In its complaint response, the landlord said it would complete necessary repairs to the wet room but would not install a bath. It said it had treated the mould. On the blocked drain, it said it visited on 7 March 2025 but could not clear the blockage. It said its contractor visited again on 22 April 2025 but could not gain access. It said it had arranged a new appointment for 14 May 2025.
6 June 2025	In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident said the damp and mould was getting worse because of the “faulty wet room and constant water blockages”. She said an occupational therapist (OT) had sent a letter to the landlord saying it needed to install a bath.
4 July 2025	In its final complaint response, the landlord said its survey on 14 May 2025 found the wet room was in working order, but it needed to do repairs. It said it had no record of an OT referral but would arrange a stock condition survey of her home. On the blocked drain, it said it had cleared tree roots and requested a CCTV survey, which would take place on 8 July 2025. On damp and mould, it said its contractors had been trying to agree an appointment with her.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us her home was “uninhabitable” due to damp and mould. She said she had water from an overflowing drain coming up through her kitchen floor. She said her home was making her and her daughter unwell. She wanted the landlord to do repairs and replace the wet room.

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	How the landlord dealt with a leak from the wet room, which the resident said caused damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that the situation affected her and her daughter’s health, and the leak damaged personal possessions. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any injury or loss caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent advice to decide on the cause of any injury or loss. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
On 7 October 2024 the landlord told the resident it would not replace the wet room in her home without an OT assessment. The landlord then arranged a survey on 10 October 2024 and found water leaking into the kitchen. It raised the repairs, but the resident cancelled these on 14 October 2024, saying she wanted it to install a bath instead.
It was reasonable for the landlord to say it would not replace the wet room with a bath without an OT assessment, as this work was an improvement rather than a repair.
We have seen no further evidence of contact between the resident and landlord until 5 months later in March 2025. The landlord said its contractor visited her home on 13 March 2025 to measure the wet room. It is unclear from the evidence we have seen why it took measurements and what led to the appointment. During the appointment, its contractor found mould and then arranged to treat it on 3 April 2025. However, it said it rescheduled the appointment during a call with her on 25 March 2025.
On 5 April 2025 the resident told the landlord that her home was “in desperate need of updating”. She said the wet room had mould, and leaks from it had tripped the electrics and damaged kitchen units and flooring. She said the damp and mould were making her and her daughter unwell. She said she wanted the wet room taken out and a bath installing and was waiting for an OT assessment. The landlord treated the mould on 11 and 15 April 2025, which was a reasonable response. However, we have seen no evidence that it did a damp and mould assessment or checked the electrics at this time.
In her complaint on 15 April 2025, the resident said there was a blockage in the wet room drain that caused leaks and meant she could not use the shower. She also said there was a leak from the toilet. She said the wet room needed replacing. She explained that she was “hard of hearing” and because of this she preferred email communication.
We have not seen a record of the visit but in its complaint response, the landlord said its contractor visited on 17 April 2025 and found the wet room leaked because of damaged tiles. However, we have not seen evidence of whether it checked if there was a blocked drain, which the resident said was the cause of the leak in her complaint. It also said the vinyl flooring was lifting, and the toilet cistern had a small crack. However, it said the resident refused the recommended repairs as she wanted it to install bath.
Under its repairs policy it was reasonable for the landlord to offer repairs for the faults it found, as a replacement bathroom would be an improvement.
As the resident had not accepted the repairs recommended by the contractor, the landlord’s surveyor visited on 14 May 2025. This was a reasonable step, as the landlord was able to get its own opinion on the resident’s report. Its surveyor found that it needed to do “minor repairs”. Its records said it did a “wet test” and found no water backing up or leaking into the kitchen. It found a slight drip from the toilet cistern. The surveyor said the wet room was “not beyond economic repair” and raised repairs for the cistern, wall tiles, and floor covering. We have seen that the finding that there was no water leaking into the kitchen contradicted the earlier findings. Because of this, we cannot assess whether there was a leak from the wet room to the kitchen.
In its complaint response on 20 May 2025, the landlord set out its appointments since 10 October 2024, when it said it found the shower curtain was outside the enclosure and this had caused water to leak into the kitchen. It said it would not install a bath, as this was an alteration or adaptation. It said the resident could ask it for permission to install a bath, but it would not pay for it. The response also said its contractor rearranged an appointment to treat mould during a telephone call with her on 25 March 2025.
Although we have not seen evidence that the landlord looked at some of the issues the resident reported, overall, its response up to this time was reasonable. This is because it responded to reports in a reasonable time, treated mould, and suggested repairs. The resident did not accept the repairs as she wanted it to replace the wet room with a bath. However, it gave a reasonable explanation of why it would not do this.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 6 June 2025, the resident said the mould was getting worse because of drainage problems and leaks from the wet room. She said the wet room was “not fit for purpose”. She said there was mould in both bedrooms, and an OT had sent a letter saying she needed a bath installed. She said she had to buy a temporary bath and toilet and partition the living room for these, as she could not use the bathroom. She said her daughter could not bring friends home as she was “embarrassed” by the state of the house. She said she had not refused a new toilet cistern repair but had suggested a better quality one. She said it had not rescheduled the 3 April 2025 appointment during a phone call as she only emailed due to a hearing difficulty.
We have not seen evidence of a letter from an OT and because of this cannot comment on what it may have said. We have also not seen evidence from the surveys that the wet room shower and toilet were unusable.
In its final complaint response on 4 July 2025, the landlord said when its surveyor visited it found the wet room in working order and fit for purpose. It said the floor covering was torn and there were some loose tiles. It said it found the toilet in working order but there was a slight drip from the cistern, the shower drained “adequately”, and there was no leak into the kitchen. It said it cancelled the repairs it raised after the visit, as its contractor had been unable to gain access. It said if the resident wanted it to do the repairs, she should let it know. It said the wet room was “not beyond economical repair”, so it would not install a bath. It said it had no record of an OT referral.
On the damp and mould, it said it raised an order on 6 March 2025, and its contractors had made appointments with the resident but had been unable to gain access. It said it last left a card on 29 April 2025 asking her to contact it. On the rearranged mould appointment, it said it had no evidence that it contacted her and apologised for the error in the stage 1 response. It said it had arranged a stock condition survey to look at the issues she had raised about damage to her kitchen. It said during this it would look at other issues in her home that it had not looked at during the inspection on 14 May 2025.
We have seen that following the final response, the landlord continued to receive reports from the resident about the wet room, which she said was making the damp and mould in her home worse. As these reports are after its final response, they are outside the scope of our investigation. However, following contact from us about the resident’s reports of worsening damp and mould, it did a full damp and mould inspection in November 2025. This recommended work throughout her home including in the wet room. Following this, the landlord agreed to replace the wet room.
Overall, we have found the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports. However, there were some failures in how it dealt with her report of a leak from the wet room, which she said caused damp and mould. We have seen no evidence that it did a damp and mould assessment until November 2025, which found it needed to do significant work.
We cannot say what the condition of her home was when the resident reported mould in April 2025. However, considering the amount of work it found it needed to do in November 2025 and her report of mould in both bedrooms on 6 June 2025, there is evidence of a problem with mould earlier in the year, which it did not investigate. In mitigation, we have seen that she refused some repairs as she wanted the landlord to replace the wet room, these repairs may have dealt with the damp and mould.
There have also been some failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident, which it accepted in its final response. We have seen evidence that the landlord sent emails to the resident, which was her communication preference due to her hearing difficulties. However, there are instances when it tried to call her, which appears to have led to some appointments not taking place.
Although the resident said she could not use the wet room and toilet, the evidence we have seen shows the wet room and toilet were usable. There is evidence it responded to her reports of leaks in a reasonable time and offered repairs. However, it did not do a damp and mould assessment until November 2025, which was a significant failure as the resident had reported mould since April 2025. There were also communication failures, as it did not always meet her communication preferences, and this caused delay, distress, and inconvenience.
In line with our compensation guidance, there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident. It acknowledged some failings and made attempts to put things right but did not address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s report of a blocked drain
Finding	Maladministration

We have not seen a record of the resident’s report, but in its complaint response, the landlord said she reported a blocked drain affecting her garden on 21 February 2025. Its contractor visited on 7 March 2025 but could not clear the blockage. The contractor said the water company needed to investigate, as the blockage could be affecting other properties. It referred the blockage to the water company on 11 March 2025, which was a reasonable response in line with its policy.
We have not seen a response from the water company. However, on 11 April 2025,the resident said the drain was overflowing and had waterlogged her garden. She said she had heard nothing from it since the visit on 7 March 2025. In her complaint on 15 April 2025, she said the garden was unusable and smelt of stale water.
In its complaint response on 20 May 2025, the landlord said that while inspecting the wet room on 17 April 2025, it noticed the manholes were overflowing. It said it arranged for its contractor to attend on 22 April 2025, but it could not gain access and then left her a voicemail for a new appointment on 25 April 2025. It said it was unable to confirm the appointment with her but tried to attend and could not gain access. It said it then visited on 14 May 2025 and cleared tree roots and requested a CCTV survey.
It is unclear why the landlord took on responsibility for the repairs after referring them to the water company. However, having done so, the resident would expect it to deal with the blockage in line with its repairs policy. The appointment on 14 May 2025 took place over 28 calendar days after she said the drain was overflowing. This was a failure to meet the timescales in its repairs policy. There appears to have been some difficulties with access, but this was because the landlord was trying to arrange appointments through phone calls, which the resident had previously explained she had difficulties with.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 6 June 2025, the resident said she was not satisfied with the landlord’s complaint response but did not mention the blocked drain. However, in its final complaint response on 4 July 2025, it said after it removed the tree roots and requested a CCTV survey, its contractors tried to contact her to arrange a survey and had confirmed an appointment with her for 8 July 2025. It said once it had done the survey, it would decide if it needed to do further repairs.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it would decide on whether to do further repairs after the survey. However, the date of the survey was almost 3 months after the resident said the drain was overflowing.
We have seen evidence that the CCTV survey, which took place on 8 July 2025, found a partially collapsed drain at the rear of the neighbouring property. To do the repairs, the landlord needed to access the neighbour’s property. It wrote to the neighbour on 15 July 2025 about the need to access their property.
In a note the landlord sent to us as part of our investigation, it accepted there was a delay from when it found it needed to do work in July 2025 to when it raised an order for the work on 4 December 2025. It said this was partially due to a change of staff and it not following up the request with the neighbour. It said there were also complications related to the neighbour’s property being up for sale. It said it gained access permission from the neighbour on 2 December 2025 and did the work on 18 December 2025. It accepted there was a failure to follow up the work and make access arrangements in a timely way.
We accept the landlord’s explanation of the delay from July to December 2025. However, the evidence shows there was also a delay from the first report in February 2025 until it did a CCTV survey in July 2025. In mitigation, some of this was due to it referring the matter to the water company, but by April 2025, it had taken on responsibility for the repairs. This meant it took the landlord 8 months to complete the repairs.
The resident explained to us that the blocked drain meant she could not use her garden over the summer months due to waterlogging and the odour. She also had to chase the landlord about the repairs. This caused her significant inconvenience and distress. It is unclear from the information we have seen whether the blocked drain contributed to problems with damp and mould and leaks in the house. Because of this, we cannot assess any other problems it may have caused.
In line with our compensation guidance, there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident. Although it made attempts to put things right it did not acknowledge its failings in its final complaint response and did not address the detriment to the resident. Because of the failings we have found, the landlord must pay her £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports that the hot water was too hot
Finding	Maladministration

On 10 May 2024 the landlord’s contractor did a gas safety inspection. The notes of the inspection said it replaced a thermostat, turned down the boiler temperature, and asked the resident to monitor the water temperature.
We have seen no further contact between the resident and landlord until she told it on 6 March 2025 that the hot water was too hot. On 5 April 2025, she told it the hot water was scalding her hands. In her complaint on 15 April 2025,she said the hot water was “still scolding”.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord followed up this report, and it did not refer to the hot water in its complaint response on 20 May 2025. The resident told the landlord in her request to escalate her complaint on 6 June 2025 that the hot water still scalded her hands, and she could not turn down the temperature on the water tank. Again, we have seen no evidence the landlord responded to this, and it did not refer to it in its final complaint response on 4 July 2025.
This was a failure by the landlord to meet its obligations to the resident to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for heating water. This caused her distress as she was concerned about the safety of her and her daughter. It also caused inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord. We have made an order on this.
In line with our compensation guidance, there was a failure by the landlord that affected the resident. It did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 April 2025. It acknowledged the complaint on 22 April 2025 and sent its response sent 20 May 2025, which was 20 working days after it acknowledged the complaint and a failure to follow its complaint policy. In mitigation it told her that due to the “complexity” of her complaint it would not be able to complete the investigation within its timescales and it would respond by 21 May 2025. It did not apologise for the delay or clearly explain the reasons, as required by the Code.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 6 June 2025. It acknowledged the complaint the same day and sent its final response 21 working days later, on 4 July 2025, which was 1 day outside its timescales. This would have had minimal impact on the resident.
The evidence shows there was a minor failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint as it did not meet the timescales in its policy at stage 1. Although it told the resident that there would be a delay, it would have been reasonable for it to apologise and fully explain this in its complaint response.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code, particularly ensuring it responds to all complaint points raised.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

Part of the reason for the delay in repairing the blocked drain was due to the landlord not following up repairs when there was a change in its staff. It should ensure it keeps clear records of repairs so other staff members can follow these up. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help with this.

Communication

The landlord did not always pass onto contractors the details of the resident’s communication requirements, which led to missed appointments. It should ensure it has processes in place to pass on information about communication preferences and that these are adhered to.