Kingston upon Hull City Council (202520372)

Background

1. The resident lives at the property with her 2 children, who are home schooled. She reported issues with leaks, damp, and mould on several occasions between 2019 and 2024.  The resident also complained about damaged to her belongings and the level of compensation offered.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We have found that:
   1. The landlord appropriately apologised to and compensated the resident for its handling of the repairs. However, it failed to evidence that it provided a clear or adequate explanation for cancelling the loft insulation repairs.
   2. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and failed to communicate about delays in issuing its response. It also did not address all issues raised by the resident.

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 did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had negatively impacted on her family’s physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any 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 an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident reported that damp and mould in the property had caused damage to her personal possessions. Under the landlord’s compensation guidelines, claims for quantifiable loss exceeding £500 are referred to its insurance provider, who then deals directly with the claimant. The resident later reported that she was dissatisfied with the insurance company’s process and decision in March 2024 not to pay compensation for the damaged items. We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties which the landlord had no control over. This means we unable to assess this specific element of the resident’s complaint.
8. In August 2025, the resident informed the landlord that damp and mould remained in the property. On 9 February 2026, we notified the landlord that the resident had reported ongoing damp and mould in the property and that this could be a hazard under Awaab’s law. In April 2026, the resident provided documentary evidence showing that remedial works in the property were ongoing. While we acknowledge the residents recent reports of damp and mould, these issues arose approximately 8 months after the landlord’s complaints procedure had been exhausted. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Our investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports between December 2019 and January 2025.
9. The resident told us that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of pests. This occurred after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. As explained above, we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord has a duty under the Decent Homes Standard to ensure resident’s homes are free from damp and mould hazards.
11. We have not had sight of the landlord’s damp and mould policy. However, its repairs and maintenance policy sets out timescales for:
    1. Emergency repairs, which it aims to attend within 24 hours and make safe. After it has made safe, further non-emergency repairs could be raised.
    2. Non-emergency repairs, which it aims to complete within 28 calendar days.
12. The resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord on 4 December 2019. She said there was mould in all the bedrooms and the window had “blown” in the bedroom. The landlord inspected the property within its target timescales on 13 December 2019 and raised the necessary works the same day.
13. In her stage 2 escalation request, the resident said she did not agree with the landlord’s view that the works failed to progress at this time due to access issues. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, the available evidence shows that between 16 December 2019 and 24 March 2020 the landlord completed some repairs, sent 2 letters to the resident, left a calling card at the property, and subsequently closed the repair due to no response. On this basis, there is no evidence that the landlord reached any unreasonable conclusions in its complaint responses. It was also positive that it explained it had changed its processes so that damp and mould repairs could not be closed by contractors until access was secured and works completed. This indicates an intention to improve service delivery and address damp and mould issues.
14. We have seen no evidence that the resident reported damp and mould issues to the landlord between March 2020 and October 2023. On this basis, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted unreasonably during this period.
15. On 27 November 2023, the resident informed the landlord that there was damp and mould present in 2 bedrooms, the kitchen and the living room. She also reported condensation on all windows throughout the property. The landlord appropriately inspected the property within its target timescales on 6 December 2023.  During the appointment it identified condensation on the ceiling and walls of rear bedrooms, wet plaster on bedroom walls, loose roof tiles, blocked guttering to front elevation and potential loose and missing mortar along both sides of the valley. It then requested its contractor to undertake the following works over approximately 9 days:
    1. Erect scaffolding to provide access for roof and guttering works.
    2. Inspect the front roof elevation and valleys and carry out repairs to make the roof watertight.
    3. Assess and repair the front‑elevation guttering.
    4. Inspect the loft water tank for leaks.
    5. Remove all wet or damaged plaster to the front external walls back to brickwork.
    6. Install a dehumidifier in the front bedroom to allow the brickwork to dry.
    7. Clean affected walls and ceilings and apply a bonding solution to areas in the bedrooms, lounge window reveals, and kitchen window reveals.
    8. Apply fungicidal paint to treated walls and ceilings in the affected rooms.
    9. Reinstate finishes by applying a backing coat and reskimming the front bedroom walls, then remove the dehumidifier and dismantle the scaffolding.
16. Overall, between December 2023 and October 2024, the landlord handled the repairs poorly. In particular, it:
    1. Caused excessive delays and failed to meet its repair timescales.
    2. Did not carry out an effective diagnosis or further investigation, later raising additional repairs.
    3. Communicated poorly and inconsistently with the resident.
    4. Kept inadequate records, with unclear outcomes from contractor visits and missing or incomplete notes.
    5. Carried out cosmetic treatments before addressing the underlying causes, which led to recurring mould, multiple follow‑on visits, and prolonged inconvenience and distress for the resident.
17. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident within its complaint responses for its handling of the repairs. We will assess the appropriateness of the landlord’s compensation offer later in the report.
18. The resident said she was unhappy with comments made by operatives who attended the property to carry out repairs. Specifically, she reported that they were dismissive of her concerns about mould‑related allergy symptoms and that they laughed and refused to answer when she asked whether it was safe for her son to sleep in his room. These were legitimate concerns that warranted a proper response from the landlord.
19. Based on the evidence provided, it is not clear when these incidents took place. However, within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that the operatives had a different recollection of events but added that it was “sorry if [she] felt they did not take [her] concerns seriously and for any impact this had.” However, the landlord did not provide any documentary evidence to support its position, such as records confirming that it had interviewed the operatives. This indicates poor record keeping. Consequently, while the resident’s account is not disputed, it has not been possible to make an assessment on this specific issue due to the absence of documentary evidence.
20. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process, stating that the landlord had not completed the loft insulation repair. The landlord’s repair records show that, at the resident’s request, it inspected the loft on 16 July 2024. The inspection identified a “small” uncovered area of approximately 2 square metres, which required topping up, and noted a significant presence of rat droppings. Missing insulation can contribute to cold spots, increased heat loss, and the development of mould.
21. The landlord has provided no further records relating to this repair, which indicates poor record keeping. However, the resident’s emails suggest the insulation works were placed on hold while the pest issue was addressed, which was reasonable in the circumstances. It was therefore inconsistent for the landlord to state in its stage 1 response that all repairs to resolve the damp and mould had been completed in October 2024. The resident also told us the landlord later advised that the insulation top‑up was no longer required and cancelled the repair. While we do not dispute the professional judgement of the landlord’s contractors, the landlord has provided no documentary evidence that it informed the resident of this decision or to support the rationale for cancelling the works. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not clarify its position within its stage 2 response. We have therefore made an order in relation to this matter.
22. As part of its stage 1 complaint response and to put matters right, the landlord revisited the property on 20 November 2024 to carry out an inspection. This was appropriate. On 22 November 2024, it wrote to the resident confirming the outcome and advising that further repairs had been scheduled for 9 December 2024, with the possibility of follow‑on works. These included:
    1. Fitting a drain connector to the kitchen sink waste pipe to direct wastewater into the gulley.
    2. Repointing waste gullies and sealing large gaps between the wall and concrete path junctions.
    3. Fitting a water trap to the wash hand basin.
    4. Removing the bath panel to check pipework for leaks.
23. Based on the available evidence, we are unable to determine whether the landlord should have reasonably identified these repairs during its inspection on 7 December 2023, or whether they were new issues that had occurred during the subsequent 12‑month period. Nevertheless, the landlord’s repair records show that it completed the repairs within its target timescales on 9 December 2024 and 16 December 2024.
24. It was positive that the landlord provided the resident with advice on how to ventilate her home to prevent condensation within its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025 and again on 21 February 2025.
25. The landlord’s compensation guidelines states that it may make awards of more than £500 where there is evidence there has been a significant impact on the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered the resident £2,000 compensation at stage 1. Taking all facts into account, we consider this a substantial offer from the landlord, falling at the top end of the compensation levels we recommend for cases of severe maladministration under our compensation policy. For this reason, we have not found it necessary to order any additional payments beyond those already offered. However, as the landlord has failed to evidence its reasoning and explanation to the resident for not topping up the loft insulation, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress.
26. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
28. The resident made her complaint on 21 October 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, which is contrary to its complaints policy and the Code.
29. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 November 2024, which was 17 working days after the resident first raised her complaint. While this was within the landlord’s maximum response timescales, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of any delays or extensions. This highlights the importance of effective communication.
30. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not address the resident’s specific concern about its insurance company’s refusal to process her insurance claim. This was inconsistent with the Code, which states that where a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, it must provide the resident with a clear explanation setting out why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process.
31. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 12 December 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
32. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 January 2025, advising it would need to extend the complaint deadline by a further 10 days. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. It then provided the stage 2 response, 9 working days later, on 23 January 2024. This was a total response time of 27 working days, and therefore compliant with its maximum timescales.
33. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
34. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right for the resident, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with our compensation policy.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s record keeping, particularly regarding repairs, was notably poor and made it difficult for us to assess several aspects of the case. Where information was provided, it lacked specific of relevant detail. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate and detailed records of all repairs.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the repair journey was consistently poor. It also failed to communicate appropriately throughout its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs and complaints system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.