Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202340525)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340525

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

27 January 2026

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A request for the family to be moved to a new property on medical grounds.
2. Reported anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. Various repairs within the property.
4. Reports of mould in the property.

Background

The resident occupies the property under a secured tenancy agreement. The resident has lived in the property since 2022, and the property is a three-bedroom home. The resident has significant health conditions which have associated mobility challenges. The property has been adapted to meet the resident’s mobility needs.
In April 2023 the resident informed the landlord that they were unhappy in their property as their neighbours were acting in an unsociable manner. The resident said this included inconsiderate parking, loud noises, drug use and offensive language. The resident also told the landlord that they were unhappy with the condition of their property.
On 17 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said:
1. The landlord had not followed up on reports of damp and mould in the adapted shower room.
2. The landlord’s medical assessment team had not contacted them regarding an application to be re-banded due to medical reasons.
3. They had been experiencing ASB which included racism, noise nuisance and drug use. They asked the landlord to prioritise their re-banding due to the ASB.
In its stage one response dated 29 November 2023 the landlord said:
1. In April 2023 the resident told the landlord that they were concerned about their neighbours’ drug use and shouting. It told the resident that it would not write to all neighbours about these issues, and had asked for more information about the ASB and who the perpetrators were.
2. After April 2023 the resident had not reported any further ASB until they filed their complaint.
3. It asked the resident to provide further information about the ASB to their housing officer so a case could be opened. If it was appropriate, it could then also conduct a joint investigation with local police.
4. It had attended the property numerous times to address issues with the resident’s adapted shower, and because of this it had decided to replace the unit.
5. The reported hole in an external wall was a new issue and it asked the resident to report this via its usual channels.
6. The resident had reported concerns about damp and mould in October and November 2023, and it had arranged for its damp and mould team to contact the resident.
7. It had attended the property on 22 November 2023 and it had identified no faults with the heating systems or radiators. It had given the resident advice around heat circulation.
8. It had arranged for the resident’s housing officer to attend the property to discuss the ASB and repairs in person.
9. It apologised for the distress the resident had experienced and said it had not met the level of service it strives for.
The resident escalated their complaint on 4 December 2023 as they were unhappy with the landlord’s response. They also asked the landlord to install a new boiler and radiators.
In its stage 2 response dated 10 January 2024 the landlord said:
1. After the resident had spoken with their housing officer about the ASB it had begun working with external agencies. It encouraged the resident to also work with relevant agencies.
2. The housing officer had given the resident diary sheets to record the ASB, and it encouraged the resident to utilise these. It said recording the ASB would help it to understand the nature and frequency of the ASB.
3. It would not replace the property’s boiler as it was newly installed in 2019.
4. On 8 December 2023 the resident’s housing officer had raised a repair to address mould in the property.
5. The only outstanding repair was a request to fill in an external hole, and it had not offered an appointment for this work as it was an external job.
On 10 February 2024 the resident contacted us as they were unhappy with how the complaint had been handled. They said they wished to be moved to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme states we cannot consider complaints which in our opinion:

‘Concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease’.

In this case the resident has said they wish to be moved to a new property as they feel the property is over-crowded and does not meet their medical needs. The assessment of housing priority based on over-crowding and medical needs is outside the jurisdiction of this Service under paragraph 41.d. This is because it is not a housing management function.
If the resident feels their priority banding is insufficient, they can raise this with the landlord via a complaint. They can then consider if they wish to bring this complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman who have jurisdiction over complaints about priority banding and associated property allocation.

The landlord’s handling of reported anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy says when a report of ASB is made it will open a case and assign the resident a single point of contact. The point of contact will agree a communication schedule and confirm the resident’s communication preferences.
Under its ASB policy the landlord encourages residents to find community-based solutions to conflicts prior to its involvement. When the landlord becomes involved, it will focus on early resolution. If the ASB progresses the landlord can consider steps such as enforcing tenancy agreements and obtaining civil injunctions.
In April 2023 the resident raised concerns about ASB in the neighbourhood and asked the landlord to send warning letters to all neighbours in the vicinity. The landlord said it could not do this because it was unaware of who was acting anti-socially, and because it did not manage all the properties in the area. The landlord asked the resident for further details on the ASB and to outline if they had tried to resolve the conflict by speaking with their neighbours. The resident did not provide the requested additional details. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it could not conduct an adequate investigation if it was unaware of the details of who was acting anti-socially or the specifics around the ASB
However, the evidence provided indicates the landlord did not act in accordance with its policy as it did not open an ASB case or assign the resident a point of contact. If a case had been opened and a point of contact was assigned, this may have made the resident feel their concerns were being taken seriously, and that they were being supported. Having a dedicated point of contact would have also made it easier for the resident to provide the information the landlord had requested. This was a missed opportunity for early resolution, which was a failing.
After the resident complained in November 2023 about the ASB the landlord acted accordingly and arranged an in-person meeting. This was a positive development, and it was good customer service. In its stage 2 response the landlord reminded the resident of the importance of recording the ASB so it could investigate accordingly, this was appropriate.
The resident has informed us that in recent months the ASB has escalated to criminal behaviour and racial abuse. We understand that this must be very distressing for the resident and their family.
The landlord has provided information to show it is currently working with police to actively investigate the ASB, this is positive. The resident told us that the landlord has said it will not rehouse the family until the police investigation has concluded. When considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, the level of the reported ASB and the resident’s wish to move, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation. It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with an updated position about a managed move and how long this process may take.
The Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred in the handling of the ASB reports as the landlord did not open an ASB case, or assign a point of contact, following the April 2023 report. To address this an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation for their associated distress.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs in the property

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will assess the urgency of reported repairs and act accordingly. For responsive repairs it will attend in 25 days via an appointment, and for emergency repairs it will attend within 5 working days.
The resident has a shower which is adapted to meet their medical needs. The landlord’s records show in the 12 months prior to the complaint that the resident reported faults with the shower 8 times, and the landlord re-installed a new shower unit twice. The repeated issues with the shower would have caused the resident distress. However, evidence confirms the landlord largely acted in a proactive manner to address the issues. This suggests the landlord attempted to mitigate the distress the resident experienced.
When reviewing the landlord’s records, we have only identified one occasion where the resident experienced a delay in the landlord addressing issues with the shower. On 24 March 2023 the resident reported that the shower seat was coming away from the wall, and the landlord attended the property on the same day to inspect the shower. The landlord repaired the seat 59 days later on 22 May 2023. The Ombudsman considers this timeframe to be unreasonably long as the matter related to the resident’s mobility needs.
When assessing the landlord’s response to the shower repairs in full, the impact of its failing in repairing the seat is reduced as it apologised to the resident and had record of timely attendance for other issues relating to the shower.
On 18 October 2023 the resident reported a leak from their boiler. The landlord attended the property the same day and rectified the leak. The landlord also gave the resident advice about heat circulation in the property being affected by clothes hanging on the radiators. During the complaint process the resident asked the landlord to replace the boiler and radiators. The landlord declined to do so as the boiler was newly installed in 2019, and it had given the resident advice around heat circulation. The landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate as it did not identify a fault with the heating systems in the property.
During the complaint process the resident told the landlord there was a hole in the property’s external masonry. In its stage 2 response the landlord said, “this is an external job therefore an appointment will not be offered.” This lacked clarity to the resident and it is reasonable that this may have led the resident to believe the repair would not be completed, causing avoidable distress. Although the Ombudsman is satisfied this was not the landlord’s intent as a repair was already raised at the point the landlord’s stage two response was issued, the lack of clarity was inappropriate.
The property’s repair records note that the hole was later cited as a possible entry and exit point for rat activity in the property. The resident has told us that they have had issues with rats in the property, and they believe there is a deceased rat somewhere within the property which is causing an unpleasant odour.
The landlord’s records confirm the repair was completed, albeit outside its 25 day repairs timescale, which was unreasonable, however as the resident reiterated this during the complaint’s process, a corresponding order will be made.
The Ombudsman has found a service failure occurred due to the lack of clarity and completion outside of its repair timescales. Considering the finding of service failure, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the distress experienced in the landlord’s handling of various reported repairs. The landlord has also been ordered to make arrangements to fix the hole in the external wall, if it has not yet done so.

The landlord’s handling of reports of mould in the property

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says when a resident reports damp and mould it will consider their circumstances and vulnerabilities and prioritise the works accordingly. After it conducts damp and mould repairs the landlord will arrange post work inspections to assess if the repairs have been successful.
On 11 October 2023 the resident reported mould was present in the bathroom that had been adapted to meet their medical needs. In their complaint dated 14 November 2023 the resident said no one had followed up on their report of mould. The landlord’s records show this was accurate. The resident complained 35 days after they had informed the landlord of the mould. As such, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s report in line with its repairs policy.
In its stage one response the landlord said its damp and mould team would contact the resident about the reported mould. It did not provide the resident with a timeframe around when the contact or an inspection would occur.. This was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had raised a repair for the mould on 6 December 2023. The resident chased the landlord about the works on 20 March 2024, and said mould had spread to other rooms in the property. Evidence suggests after logging the repair on 6 December 2023 the first occasion when the landlord attended the property for the reported mould was on 3 July 2024. This was 211 days later. We consider this to be an inappropriate response time.
On 3 July 2024 the landlord conducted a damp and mould survey. It replaced grout in the shower and arranged for a new extractor fan to be installed. The landlord installed the new extractor fan on 8 November 2024, this was 121 days after the need for a replacement had been noted. This was an unreasonable response time.
The landlord conducted a post-work inspection on 25 September 2024, this was appropriate. During this inspection the landlord identified that further works were required. It was positive that the landlord identified the required works itself, as this meant the resident did not need to go through the process of reporting the mould to the landlord again. Conducting a post-work inspection was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, and it was good customer service.
The reported mould was not extensive and would not have significantly impacted the resident’s enjoyment or use of the property. However, the landlord should have still acted in line with its policies and addressed the resident’s reports in a reasonable timeframe. This was of particular importance as the mould was present in a room which was adapted to meet the resident’s physical needs.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. There were extensive delays in the landlord addressing the reported mould.
2. The landlord did not appear to fully consider its policy to prioritise damp and mould works for vulnerable residents.
Considering the finding of maladministration the Ombudsman has made the following orders:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £300 in recognition of the distress experienced from its handling of reports of mould in the property. This amount is broken down as follows:
  1. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to address the mould within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. £100 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to consider prioritising the repair due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
2. The landlord is to contact the resident to establish if there is any ongoing damp and mould issues within the property, if there is the landlord is to act in accordance with its damp and mould policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of various reported repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reported mould in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £500 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £100 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB.
2. £100 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of various repairs within the property.
3. £300 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the reported mould.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to make arrangements to fix the hole in the external wall, if it has not yet done so.
The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with our orders within 4 weeks of the determination.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with an updated position about a managed move and how long this process may take.
The landlord should arrange for an inspection to identify if there is a pest infestation or deceased pests in the property and any entry points that may require repair.
The landlord is to contact the resident to establish if there is any ongoing damp and mould issues within the property. If there is the landlord should act in accordance with its damp and mould policy.