Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202530432)

Decision
Case ID	202530432
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	2 June 2026

Background

1. The landlord is aware the resident uses a walking aid. He said he needs additional time to answer the door due his vulnerabilities, but the landlord did not allow for this. He raised concerns about the landlord’s operatives during a visit to his home and a lack of advance notice of an electrical outage. He further raised concerns about damp and mould and damage to his front door. The resident also told us that he has several conditions, including anxiety, depression and chronic fatigue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports of damage to the front door.
   3. Requests for additional time to answer the door.
   4. Concerns about staff conduct.
   5. Concerns about its communication regarding an electrical outage.
   6. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
      1. Reports of damage to the front door.
      2. Requests for additional time to answer the door.
      3. Concerns about staff conduct.
      4. Concerns about its communication regarding an electrical outage.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord acted in line with its policies when it first responded to reports of damp and mould. However, it did not put things right after it identified the need for further investigation. It also failed to assess the reported health impact as a potential material change, in line with Awaab’s Law.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the front door

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damage to the front door in line with its repair policy timescales.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for additional time to answer the door

6. There was no evidence the landlord knew the resident needed more time to answer the door. Once it was aware of this, it acted reasonably and updated its records.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

7. The landlord investigated the concerns about staff conduct and explained what it did. It sought to resolve the issue by apologising and offering compensation for the impact.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its communication regarding an electrical outage

8. The landlord responded reasonably by explaining its position regarding advance notices of outages. It confirmed why it may not always provide exact timescales but that it aims to keep residents informed as repairs progress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

9. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. Its decision to decline the resident’s stage 1 complaint about the front door was also in line with its policy. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns after he raised them again as part of his escalation.

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 identified in this report in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and complaint handling. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior member of staff the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 01 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1050 made up as follows: £1000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the associated complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 01 July 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must determine if there is an emergency or significant hazard and then attend within the timeframes set out in Awaab’s law (investigate and take make safe action within 24 hours if an emergency hazard or investigate within 10 working days if a significant hazard). If it determines there is no hazard, it must provide an inspection report evidencing this. If it determines there is a hazard, it must provide us and the resident with a written summary of the inspection and work required within 3 working days of its investigation. This must set out a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective solution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible) and the expected timescales for completion. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. The inspection must consider whether there are any Category 1 or 2 hazards in the property. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property, in line with any applicable no access procedures, no later than the due date.	No later than 01 July 2026
4	Write to the resident If it has not done so already, the landlord must write to the resident confirming the timescales for the planned front door replacement.	No later than 01 July 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to clarify his request for additional waiting time and ensures its records clearly reflect the expected waiting time to reduce the risk of further missed appointments.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £75 as agreed in the final complaint response for impact of the reported staff conduct concerns.
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to provide details of how he may pursue a claim for damaged belongings under its insurance policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 October 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about the following: contractor conduct during a visit on 7 October 2025, including entering his bedroom without knocking or requesting permission the landlord’s plumber not allowing enough time for him to answer the door, despite his prior request communication about repair appointments and the need to disconnect electricity to carry out works its handling of reports of damp and mould its handling of reports of front door damage and a council tax error
21 October 2025	The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident. It confirmed it would not include the front door in the complaint, as it held no record of any reports concerning this in the last 12 months. However, it would raise a service request. It also confirmed it could not respond to his council tax queries.
31 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said that: it held no note on its system about allowing additional time at the door, but it would add this to his record damp and mould works were ongoing following a recent surveyor visit and its plumber would attend to locate a suspected leak it would speak to its operatives regarding expected behaviour it was not always possible to provide residents with accurate timeframes for loss of electricity The landlord apologised for how the resident was made to feel while its operatives were in his property. It explained that the person who entered his bedroom was an apprentice and inexperienced. It confirmed it could not offer compensation as its previous attempts to access the property to survey the damp and mould were unsuccessful.
7 November 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord’s stage 1 response understated the seriousness of its failings, did not provide proper redress and failed to acknowledge impact on his health and wellbeing. He reported that his health had deteriorated further, which he attributed to the damp and mould and the stress of pursuing the complaint. He attached video evidence of a leak into the downstairs flat, which he believed to be a larger structural defect. The resident requested £1,800 compensation, a timebound schedule of works (including those relating to the front door which he said remained unresolved) and assurance that operatives would receive training. He added that he would be abroad shortly until 1 December 2025 but would remain contactable by email.
8 December 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed it would discuss expected standards with the operatives in question and the wider team. The landlord also outlined the timescales from the resident’s first report of damp and mould. It confirmed its plumber who visited on 7 November 2025 did not identify any leaks. However, it said it would assess this further after reviewing the video the resident had sent in. It confirmed it would visit the resident on 8 December 2025 to carry out an assessment and schedule works. The landlord offered the resident £470 compensation made up of: £320 for hallway damage (£10 per week from March 2025) £75 for incorrectly identifying the root cause of the damp £75 for contractor behaviour
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He is seeking increased compensation for loss of contents and the impact to his health. He also wants the landlord to complete repairs to a ‘durable’ standard, follow the reasonable adjustments he requested, and review its contractor conduct and complaint handling. Both the resident and the landlord recently confirmed that works to address the damp and mould remain outstanding.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

10. The resident reported damp and mould on the hallway wall leading up the stairs to his property on 11 March 2025. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure at the time said it would triage reports and arrange a mutually convenient inspection by a surveyor. The procedure did not set timescales for inspections. The landlord assessed the report as low risk in line with its procedure. An external contractor attempted to attend 16 working days later, on 2 April 2025, but could not gain access. It completed a survey on 17 April 2025.
11. The survey recommended 4-stage mould treatment to the hallway wall and 1 of the bathroom walls. It identified the probable cause of the damp and mould as a previous bath leak, which the landlord had resolved in February 2024. The landlord carried out the recommended mould treatment on 9 May 2025.
12. The landlord had a 2-stage follow-up process after completion of damp and mould works aimed at ensuring it resolved the root cause of the issues. It attempted to contact the resident to arrange its 3-month post works survey on 20 August 2025. It was unable to reach him by phone and sent a letter asking him to get in touch to arrange this. Its next follow-up check was due 3 months later, in November 2025.
13. The resident made another report of damp and mould in the bathroom and hallway on 17 September 2025. He said the paintwork on the hallway wall was bubbling. The landlord acknowledged his report the following day and arranged an inspection for 25 September 2025. It confirmed it could not access the property on the day of the appointment, so it re-arranged this with the resident. It then made 2 further attempts to inspect the property, on 29 September 2025 and 6 October 2025. Both of its attempts were unsuccessful. It left calling cards and wrote to the resident asking him to make contact within 14 days. The landlord’s actions in response to the September 2025 report, including its handling of access issues, were in line with its damp and mould procedure.
14. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to his reports of persistent damp and mould issues on 13 October 2025. The landlord completed a survey on 20 October 2025. It recommended a plumber visit to investigate a possible leak in the bathroom as well as mould treatment and plastering works. It wrote to the resident confirming its findings on 30 October 2025.
15. The landlord said its decorator received no access to the property on 31 October 2025. On 7 November 2025 a plumber attended to investigate possible leaks. We have not been provided with a copy of their report. However, the landlord confirmed the plumber did not identify any leaks and suspected water could be passing through wall tiles. They recommended wall boards to be fitted to the bathroom wall. On the same day as the plumber appointment, the resident escalated his complaint and told the landlord he believed there was a larger structural issue causing the damp and mould. He attached a video showing water dripping into a cupboard in the property directly below his. He also confirmed his health had deteriorated further, specifically that he experienced breathing and sleeping difficulties, which he believed were linked to the damp and mould.
16. The resident’s notification of health impact could constitute a potential material change in circumstances under Awaab’s law which came into force on 27 October 2025. This requires social landlords to complete damp and mould inspections and remedial work in set times where an emergency or significant hazard is found. This applies where landlords receive notice of damp or mould on or after this date or where there was a material change from a previous report.
17. Once the landlord received the report, it ought to have considered if it disclosed information on whether:
    1. There was a potential emergency hazard – which is a hazard that poses a significant and imminent risk to the health and safety of the household, which a reasonable landlord with knowledge and information about the property and residents would want to make safe within 24 hours.
    2. There was a potential significant hazard – which is damp and mould which poses a significant (but not imminent) risk to the health and safety of the household, which a reasonable landlord would want to make safe, but not necessarily within 24 hours.
18. There is no evidence it took this step, which was a failure to triage in line with Awaab’s law on receipt of the report. The resident confirmed as part of his email that he would be abroad until 1 December 2025. While this impacted the landlord’s ability to carry out a further inspection, it did not prevent it from triaging the report in line with the available information it had about the potential hazard and the resident’s circumstances.
19. The landlord contacted the resident shortly after his expected return on 3 December 2025 and arranged a further inspection on 8 December 2025. It said it intended to assess whether there were any leaks present as it did not believe water flowing at the rate shown in the video he supplied could be caused by water penetration through wall tiles. It issued its stage 2 response on the same day as the scheduled appointment and offered compensation for impact of not incorrectly identifying the root cause of the damp previously and for resulting damage to the hallway wall.
20. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress it offered (repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord acted fairly by recognising it had not resolved the root cause of the damp and mould and offering compensation for the impact this caused. Its decision to further investigate the resident’s concern that there could be a larger structural issue was reasonable. It confirmed it was unable to gain access on the day of the scheduled appointment on 8 December 2025. However, we have seen no evidence it left a calling card or attempted any further follow-up.
22. The landlord’s damp and mould policy confirms it will follow a robust and consistent access procedure to make reasonable attempts to access a property and carry out a survey, or repairs and remedial works. The landlord previously followed a 3-stage process, which it concluded in a letter to the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have followed this process again, in line with its policy, particularly since it was now aware of potential impact on the resident’s health.
23. Government guidance on Awaab’s law further states that landlords should make reasonable attempts to gain access for inspections. This is particularly relevant where there are known barriers to access. In this case, the history of access issues and the resident’s request for additional time to answer the door were factors the landlord should have considered. The lack of any follow-up after the scheduled appointment meant the landlord had failed to put things right satisfactorily in the circumstances.
24. The evidence shows no progress until 20 February 2026, when the landlord arranged an appointment for 19 March 2026 to fit wall boards. It said it had offered the resident an earlier date, which he declined. We understand that this and subsequent appointments did not proceed due to access issues. The resident recently confirmed that the works remain outstanding and the landlord’s handling of access issues formed part of a further complaint.
25. The landlord based the proposed works on recommendations from November 2025. However, the evidence does not show that it carried out further investigation into the root cause after it could not gain access for a further inspection it arranged in December 2025. It is unclear why it returned to the same works without doing so, given it had already identified its previous conclusion was unlikely based on the video evidence the resident had submitted.
26. We understand that the landlord has arranged a further appointment to install the wall boards on 4 June 2026. However, in light of the resident’s notification of a potential material change and inconsistency in its assessment of the root cause of the damp and mould, we have ordered it to inspect the property again. This is intended to confirm what it considers to be the root cause of the issue and set out what works are required to achieve a lasting solution. In line with our compensation guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation, we have also ordered it to pay the resident £1000 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused. This includes the £395 compensation it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process.
27. The resident also told us some of his belongings, including his laptop, were damaged because of the damp and mould. We have not seen evidence he raised this with the landlord as part of the complaint. We have recommended that the landlord addresses this by providing the resident with information on how he may pursue a claim for damaged belongings under its insurance policy.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the front door.
Finding	No maladministration

28. The resident said he first reported the front door frame looking damaged and unsightly shortly after moving into the property in May 2023. There is a record of the landlord repairing the front door lock and handle at that time. However, we have seen no evidence of reports of the damage to the frame. We have also seen no evidence the resident raised this at any point prior to making the complaint on 13 October 2023.
29. The landlord acted reasonably by raising a service request for the front door following the resident’s complaint. It confirmed its joiner attended the property on 14 November 2025 and 18 November 2025 but received no access. Then landlord said it inspected the door on 20 November 2025. It deemed that it was safe but added it to its next replacement scheme.
30. The landlord’s response to the reports about the front door was within its repair policy timescale of 25 working days for responsive repairs. However, it attended on 2 occasions when the resident had said he would be abroad and unavailable. This suggests it did not agree appointments in advance. This caused a minor delay to the inspection, which did not cause detriment to the resident.
31. The resident asked for an update regarding the front door as part of his complaint escalation. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to this, and we have addressed this as part of the complaint handling section.

Complaint	The resident’s request for additional time to answer the door.
Finding	No maladministration

32. The resident said that a plumber who attended to repair his shower did not allow sufficient time for him to answer his door. He said he had previously requested additional time to answer the door as an adjustment, due to his mobility issues. We have considered whether the landlord acted reasonably in identifying and recording such requests. However, as we have not seen evidence of how long the plumber waited, we cannot conclude this led to a missed appointment.
33. The landlord confirmed at stage 1 of its complaints process that it held no record of a request for additional time on its system. While 1 third-party contractor work order from April 2025 noted the resident took time to get to the door, others did not include this information. The evidence does not show that the third-party contractor shared this information with the landlord or that the resident requested additional waiting timeas an adjustment for all future visits.
34. In addition, the resident did not record any access requirements on damp and mould forms he submitted to the landlord in March 2025 and September 2025. This was despite the forms specifically requesting this information. While the landlord knew about the resident’s mobility issues, the evidence does not show it ought reasonably to have known he required a specific period to answer the door for pre-arranged appointments.
35. The resident told the landlord he required 2 to 3 minutes to answer the door as part of his stage 1 complaint. The landlord responded in line with its Vulnerable Tenants policy by updating its records and confirming it would note this for future appointments.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

36. The resident’s concerns included operatives entering his bedroom without seeking permission, shouting, using his bin, asking to use his bathroom and not treating his personal belongings with respect. The resident explained that he found the reported behaviour distressing and he felt unable to challenge it because of his vulnerabilities. Due to the nature of the concerns relating to operatives’ behaviour while working in the resident’s home, there is limited opportunity to independently verify the events as described.
37. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would speakto the operatives who visited the resident’s home regarding expected behaviour. It also explained that the operative who entered his bedroom was an apprentice and it was confident that he would learn from this experience. Following its stage 1 response, the landlord recorded its investigation, which confirmed it had remindedthe operatives in question about expected standards, and that it would monitor their future conduct. It also confirmed it would address the reported issues with the wider team to ensure all its staff were aware of what it considers to be appropriate behaviour while working in residents’ homes.
38. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns within the limits of the available evidence. It acted on the concerns raised by reinforcing expected standards with its staff. Despite it not identifying any failings it also apologised for how the resident felt and offered him £75 compensation. This was reasonable and demonstrated a resolution-focused approach.

Complaint	The landlord’s communication regarding an electrical outage
Finding	No maladministration

39. The resident raised that the landlord did not notify him it would isolate his electricity in advance of an electrical appointment for his shower. He said that this disrupted his online studies. We understand this electrical isolation took place while the operatives were at the resident’s property during a scheduled appointment. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it arranges suitable appointment slots with residents.
40. The landlord explained that, while it aims to do so, it cannot always provide exact timing for outages in advance as this depends on the nature of the work. We would expect operatives to inform the resident before isolating the electricity and to give an estimated duration where possible while on site. As these discussions would have taken place in person, we cannot establish what information the resident received. While the resident reported inconvenience, some disruption is unavoidable during repair works. Overall, the landlord’s response and explanation about advance notices was reasonable.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the associated complaint
Finding	Service failure

41. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure comply with the Code.
42. The landlord acted reasonably by contacting the resident to discuss and set out the scope of the complaint it could consider. It responded to the complaint at both stages of its internal process in line with the timescales set out in its policy. Both landlord’s complaint responses contained the incorrect date. This minor error is unlikely to have caused any detriment to the resident who would have received its responses on the dates it had issued them or within a few days, if sent by post.
43. The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s complaint about the front door initially was in line with its complaints policy. However, it failed to respond after the resident raised the issue again as part of his stage 2 response. It rejected a further complaint as it said the service request was still within 28 days of when it originally raised it. There is no provision in the landlord’s policy for rejecting complaints on this basis. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered the issue at stage 1.
44. The landlord’s failure to do so meant it did not address the resident’s query about when it would resolve the front door issue. This represented a minor failure in the landlord’s complaint handling which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. When referring the complaint to us, the resident said he remained unaware of next steps. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failure.

Learning

45. Landlords should ensure that any no access procedures are followed consistently, each time further works or investigations are identified as necessary.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. The landlord’s records were adequate.

Communication

47. Landlords should maintain clear and timely communication with residents about appointments and the scope of works, including what to expect during visits. The landlord may find it useful to refer to the recommendations set out in our January 2024 Spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.