Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202414629)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414629

Kirklees Council

30 May 2025

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was damp and cold.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property, a 2-bed house, in February 2020.
On 17 March 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She had ongoing issues with damp which were worsening.
2. It was impacting her physical and mental health. It was also affecting her family life as she could not have her grandchild visit due to the issue.
3. Her kitchen cupboards were “rotting”. She was having to throw away food spoiled by mould.
4. There was no radiator in the kitchen and it was “freezing”.
5. Mould was coming out of the taps in her bathroom. The water provider said this could be a “health hazard”.
6. There was an infestation of flies, silverfish and woodlice.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 27 March 2023. It did not however provide a stage 1 response.
On 5 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to raise a further complaint. She said she continued to experience damp and mould and was unhappy with the “lack of action” by the landlord. She reiterated the issues raised in her stage 1 complaint.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 6 June 2024. It explained that it would raise a stage 2 complaint as it had not responded to her complaint at stage 1.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 July 2024. It said:
1. It understood the resident was unhappy with its stage 1 response.
2. It had previously inspected the damp. It had carried out repairs and mould treatments. It understood these works had not resolved the issue.
3. Its surveyor had carried out an inspection and suspected the damp may be coming up through the floor of the property.
4. It had raised works with a specialist damp contractor. It had also asked its heating team if it could install additional heating in the kitchen.
5. It apologised for the time it had taken to address the damp and for the distress and inconvenience caused. It also apologised for its complaint handling failings.
6. It offered £50 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from March 2021 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Reference made to events that occurred prior to that date is for context.
The resident said within her complaint that:
1. Mould and “sludge” were coming out of her taps.
2. She was experiencing infestations of flies, silver fish, and woodlice.
The landlord failed to address these issues within its complaint responses, and it should reasonably have done so. We do not have sufficient evidence to investigate the landlord’s handling of these issues as part of this investigation, but have considered the issue within our assessment of its complaint handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was damp and cold.

The resident first reported issues with damp shortly after she moved into the property. She continued to report damp throughout 2021.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord took any action until October 2021. This was an unreasonable delay. At this time the landlord referred the issue to an external contractor which reported back in November 2021 that there was “no mould”.
The resident has stated in her communications with the landlord that the contractor attended on 3 occasions to carry out mould treatment. The landlord did not refute this. However, we have seen no evidence of these visits in its repair logs, this indicates insufficiencies in its record keeping.
The purpose of a mould wash is to treat mould, it does not address the cause of the damp. While it was appropriate that the landlord addressed any existing mould, we would also have expected it to investigate the cause of the issue. That we have not seen evidence of such investigations is inappropriate.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she continued to report damp to the landlord regularly. This is not reflected in the records the landlord has provided. Given the lack of evidence, it is not possible to assess the landlord’s response to any reports.
In June 2023 the landlord completed repairs to the pointing in some areas of the external walls. The resident confirms this was following a further report of damp. This would support her statement that she was reporting the issue.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We do not consider that the landlord’s record keeping in this case has been robust enough.
The landlord’s current damp, mould and condensation policy states that it will carry out 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits where it has carried out repairs for damp and mould. We accept that this version of the policy was introduced in 2024. However, undertaking a follow-up in such circumstances would be considered to be good practice. We have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out any follow-up visits in this case. Had it done so, it may have identified sooner that there was an underlying issue causing the mould that required further investigation.
The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp in March 2024. She chased it twice for an update on the issue. She said the walls were wet and the issue was impacting her health. That the resident had to chase the landlord for an update was unreasonable and caused her to invest avoidable time and trouble.
In April 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the property. It found the humidity was high and that some walls had elevated moisture readings. The surveyor suspected there was an issue with the roof or chimney and raised a further inspection. The landlord’s roofing contractor inspected the roof and chimney in May 2024. It found no issues that may have caused water ingress, damp or mould.
It was appropriate that the landlord carried out these inspections, though it should reasonably have done so sooner. As the roofing contractor found no issues, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to commission further investigations. It failed to do so until the resident asked it to do so.
Throughout May and June 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the damp issue. She said the roofing contractor had told her there were no issues with the roof so she asked for a second opinion from a surveyor. That the resident had to repeatedly ask for an update was unreasonable. This is a further example of her having to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
On 26 June 2024 the landlord carried out a further inspection in response to the resident’s request for a second opinion. It decided that a specialist damp contractor was required to carry out a further survey and repair works.
Following its survey the landlord carried out the following works:
1. On 9 July 2024 it fitted vent covers to the gable end of the property.
2. On 1 August 2024 it fitted a new loft hatch.
3. On 6 August 2024 it repaired the soil pipe.
4. On 30 August 2024 it repaired the rainwater gulley.
These repairs were appropriate and completed within a reasonable timeframe of the inspection.
The landlord has stated that it is the usual procedure for its damp contractor to carry out its survey when the property is empty. It has advised that this was the reason for the delay in this case as it struggled to decant the resident.
The landlord made 2 offers of temporary accommodation to the resident in September 2024 and January 2025. The resident declined these offers as she said the areas were unsuitable.
We acknowledge that finding suitable temporary accommodation can be difficult for landlords. We note that the landlord has demonstrated that it considered the resident’s needs when looking for accommodation. It accepted her explanation as to why the properties it offered her were unsuitable. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s decant procedure does not specify whether it has the discretion to temporarily accommodate residents in other accommodation such as a bed and breakfast, hotel, or holiday lets. It has suggested to the resident that it would only consider such options for short periods. If it is the case that it will consider different options depending on the length of the stay, it should consider outlining this in its procedure. Its procedure is silent on this issue.
We have ordered the landlord to explain to the resident why it is not willing to consider hotel accommodation or similar in this case. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may consider making a new complaint regarding its handling of the decant.
As the landlord was unable to decant the resident, the damp contractor carried out its survey on 11 March 2025 with the resident’s belongings in place. It found high moisture readings, “inadequate” ventilation, and the temperature of the property was below desired levels. It recommended that the landlord install a new damp proof course (DPC) internally and externally, and a positive input ventilation (PIV) system. It also suggested that the landlord consider upgrading the radiators in the property.
The landlord asked its heating team to carry out an assessment of the heating and consider whether an additional heater could be installed in the kitchen. While we are aware the landlord has agreed to install a radiator in the kitchen, we have seen no evidence that it carried out a heating survey. We have therefore ordered it to carry one out if it has not already done so.
The landlord sent the resident a copy of the specialist’s report. It said that, as it was struggling to find suitable decant accommodation, the contractor had advised it could complete the work with the resident in situ if she was happy with this. The resident agreed.
The resident has acknowledged to this Service that she agreed to remain in the property. However, she said she only did so as the landlord told her resolution of the issue may be delayed indefinitely if it had to find her a temporary decant. She has expressed concern as she says the landlord told her the work would take 6 to 8 weeks and has recommended that she be out of the property as much as possible during the works.
At the time of this report work to address the damp and mould have not yet been completed. The landlord has advised it expects work to start in early June 2025. As part of these works it will install a new DPC and PIV system. It will also replace the resident’s kitchen and install a new radiator.
We note that the resident has expressed concerns about whether the works will resolve the damp. We note that she does not consider them to be extensive enough. The resident does however accept that she must allow the landlord to complete the works and then assess whether they were successful. As the landlord’s policy states it will carry out 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits, any ongoing issues should be identified then.
Within its complaint response the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation. We do not consider that this was reasonable or proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.
The resident has paid approximately £400 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. We consider that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s enjoyment of the property has been affected by the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and cold (50 months).
Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,000 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 5% of the total rent during the period in question. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will award additional compensation in recognition of other failings it has identified, and for distress and inconvenience.
Overall, the landlord has:
1. Delayed in addressing the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
2. Not communicated effectively with the resident.
3. Failed to keep robust records of all reports and works carried out.
4. Not provided a reasonable explanation as to why it has not considered hotel or other temporary accommodation.
5. Not responded to its contractor’s recommendation that it consider upgrading the radiators in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This was inappropriate and a failure to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy.
As she had not received a response to her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to raise a new complaint in June 2024. It was only at this time that the landlord identified that it had not responded to her stage 1 complaint. This indicates that there was insufficient monitoring of complaints in place.
Due to its failure to respond to the stage 1 complaint, the landlord raised a stage 2 complaint. We understand that it did so to avoid further delaying the resident’s access to the Ombudsman. However, this also meant that the resident did not benefit from a 2-stage process and right to review.
Within its stage 2 complaint response the landlord incorrectly stated that the resident was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response. As it had failed to provide a stage 1 response this was misleading.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord has failed to do so in this case. It has not responded to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Mould and “sludge” coming out of her taps and that this may be a health hazard.
2. Infestations of flies, silver fish, and woodlice.
We have ordered the landlord to investigate and respond to these issues within its complaint process. If the resident remains dissatisfied when the complaint completes the landlord’s process, she may escalate it to the Ombudsman.
The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that there were failings in its handling of both the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the complaint. It apologised for its failings and offered £50, stating this was in line with its redress policy. As previously explained, this did not provide proportionate redress.
The amount offered was not, contrary to the landlord’s statement, in line with its redress policy. Its policy states that, where there had been a service failure, it will offer compensation of:
1. Up to £50 for ‘low impact’.
2. £50-100 for ‘medium impact’.
3. £250-1,000 where there has been a ‘high impact’.
The impact in this case could not be considered ‘low’. Given the distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, and reduced enjoyment of the property, the landlord’s offer of £50 was inappropriate and inadequate.
We note that the compensation outlined in the landlord’s policy is not in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. We have therefore recommended that the landlord consider reviewing its policy.
We consider that the landlord:
1. Delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. Failed to address all aspects of the complaint.
3. Did not adhere to its complaint policy or the requirements of the Code.
4. Made a misleading comment in its complaint response.
5. Failed to provide proportionate redress.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was damp and cold.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 10 working days of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Raise a complaint in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of infestations and mould coming out of the taps. It must respond to the complaint in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
2. Provide the resident with an action plan outlining what work it will complete, how long it expects this to take, and whether it plans to decant the resident. If it is not willing to consider hotel accommodation (or similar) it should provide the resident with an explanation of this decision.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,750 compensation comprising:
  1. £1,000 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its response to the resident’s reports that the property was damp and cold.
  2. £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble due to its response to the resident’s reports that the property was damp and cold.
  3. £250 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
3. If it cannot provide evidence that it has done so, carry out a survey of the heating in the property and determine whether the existing radiators are satisfactory or require upgrading. It should advise the resident and the Ombudsman of the results of the survey and its decision within 2 weeks of the survey.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider reviewing its decant procedure to include any restrictions or discretion regarding the use of hotel or other temporary accommodation.
The landlord should consider reviewing the compensation framework within its redress policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.