Leeds City Council (202501016)

Background

1. The resident has been reporting damp and mould since moving into her bungalow in 2018. She is dissatisfied with the actions the landlord has taken to address her reports. She said her personal belongings have been damaged as a result. The resident is living with mobility and respiratory conditions. The landlord recorded that these conditions made the resident vulnerable.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

5. While the landlord took some steps to address the damp and mould, we found delays in its response to the resident’s reports and completion of works it had identified as necessary to address it.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

7. The resident reported experiencing damp and mould since 2018. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner and to escalate them through the landlord’s process if they remain dissatisfied. The issues raised in this case were included in a disrepair claim settled in January 2023 and in a complaint the landlord responded to at stage 1 in November 2023. We have not seen evidence that the resident asked to escalate that complaint. Considering the timeframes involved, this investigation does not consider events before 21 November 2023 and any reference to earlier events is for context only.
8. The resident reported that the damp and mould in her home worsened her existing respiratory conditions and impacted her 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 any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The landlord inspected the property on 30 November 2023. Given the history and complexity of the issues raised, it arranged for 2 of its technical officers to attend. This was a reasonable approach to ensure its findings were verified and accurately recorded. Prior to the inspection, the landlord also provided the resident with a copy of its damp and mould leaflet which offered advice on how to manage condensation, especially in the colder months.
10. During the inspection, the landlord recorded small, isolated occurrences of black mould around windowsills and vents. It found that the utility area (next to the kitchen) where the resident kept her tumble dryer did not have adequate means of ventilation. It also noted that the kitchen fan was switched off and the trickle vents on the windows were blocked. It recorded high moisture readings in the air which it said could lead to condensation. It said that the walls were dry throughout the property and there were no signs of water ingress.
11. The landlord arranged for the extractor fans in the property to be checked and raised an order to install a vent for the tumble dryer. These actions were in keeping with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which says it will undertake reasonable improvement works required to assist in the management and control of condensation damp.
12. The landlord operates a timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs, but it does not specify any timescales for improvement works, such as installing a vent. The landlord inspected the fans within its routine repair timescales. However, it was unable to install the vent when it attended on 25 January 2024 as there was no access. It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord had agreed the appointment with the resident in advance, however it left a calling card.
13. On 21 February 2024 the resident reported damp again. The available evidence shows that, following the resident’s report, the landlord did not take steps to arrange an inspection until 7 March 2024. The inspection took place on 22 April 2024. The resident experienced an unreasonable 2-month delay. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the 2-week delay from the resident reporting damp and it trying to arrange an inspection. It has also not explained why an inspection could not be attended for a further 6 weeks.
14. During the inspection, it found mould around windows and external walls caused by condensation. It raised remedial works, which were due to be completed by 23 May 2024. Guttering works were completed on 31 May 2024. However, on 11 June 2024, the landlord cancelled the other jobs and combined the remedial works with improvement works (thermal board and damp proof membrane installation).
15. The landlord completed these works on 3 August 2024. This is a delay of about 10 weeks from the date the original remedial works were due to be finished. There is evidence to show that the resident initially refused to agree to appointments when contacted on 11 June 2024 and 26 July 2024 and the resident refused access on 19 July 2024. These matters delayed the completion of the works. However, it is clear that the landlord failed to meet its timescale for repairs. This is a shortfall in service
16. It is acknowledged that the available evidence indicates that the areas of mould in April 2024 were small and isolated. However, it is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for extended periods. This not only increases the frustration and discomfort of the resident but can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. Landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner, particularly when the resident has reported respiratory issues.
17. The landlord attempted to install the vent for the tumble dryer on 2 further occasions in April and May 2024,but it was unable to gain access to the property. There is no evidence it followed up with the resident after these failed attempts. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so, given it had already identified that inadequate ventilation posed a risk, which appeared to have materialised.
18. Shortly after completion of the improvement works, in September 2024, the resident told the landlord’s support team that she did not believe the issues had been resolved. The resident reported damp and mould concerns again on 25 October 2024 and 14 November 2024. The landlord did not inspect the property until 31 January 2025. This delay in the landlord’s response was unreasonable, particularly as the resident reported that her breathing was affected.
19. When the landlord inspected the property on 31 January 2025, it found mould in the bathroom and a blown double-glazed unit in the lounge. It completed the necessary works, however it did so 20 working days outside of its timescales for routine repairs. During further inspections in May and July 2025 the landlord noted minor mould, which it treated. The landlord concluded that the property was fit for habitation. Its records also show it had previously supported the resident with her housing options and registering on the exchange list, which was reasonable.
20. The landlord attempted to install a vent for the tumble dryer on 5 June 2025. The record of the operative’s visit indicates that the resident explained that she already placed the tumble dryer hose out of the window when she used it. The resident was concerned that by attaching the hose permanently to a vent, the space in the utility area would be reduced. Given that the resident was already taking appropriate measures to ventilate the tumble dryer and she refused the vent installation, the landlord was not required to take any further action.
21. As part of the complaint, the resident raised concerns about the effectiveness of the landlord’s investigations into the root cause of the damp. The evidence shows that the technical officers who carried out each inspection used specialist equipment to measure wall moisture, humidity, and temperature. Their recommendations were focused on addressing the likely causes of the issues, which they identified as inadequate ventilation and condensation, instead of only addressing the symptoms like mould. While we understand further investigations are currently ongoing, the landlord demonstrated a reasonable approach in its investigations during the period we considered. The landlord was also entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff.
22. The resident reported damage to her personal belongings, including rusty white goods. The landlord said it was not responsible for rust on white goods but advised the resident that she could claim for other items through its corporate insurance. This distinction was unclear, as its compensation guidance says that claims with an estimated value of above £100 should be referred to its corporate insurance team. The resident believes the rust was caused by the damp and mould and we understand she submitted a claim for all the items.
23. The resident told us that that she has not heard back from the relevant team regarding the insurance claim she had submitted. Insurance matters fall outside our remit as management of an insurance policy is not a housing activity. However, we would expect the landlord to facilitate an update on the claim’s progress from the relevant department within its organisation.
24. The resident also raised concerns about her radiators, dehumidifiers, and the front door. The landlord inspected these within a reasonable timescale. It also offered to clean off minor marks from the resident’s floor and reskim the kitchen ceiling, which was reasonable.
25. Regarding the wallpaper, the resident said the landlord removed it from half of the walls to treat them and was unhappy it had not reinstated it. The landlord said it does not wallpaper after service improvements. The landlord’s compensation guidance distinguishes its duty to make good depending on whether something is a repair or an improvement. However, it is not clear from the evidence why the landlord said that the works which required wallpaper removal amounted to an improvement.
26. Overall, while the landlord took some reasonable steps to address the resident’s damp and mould concerns, we have identified some shortcomings in its handling of the matter. These included:
    1. Delays in responding to the resident’s reports in February 2024 and September 2024.
    2. Delays in treating the mould identified during the April 2024 inspection and in completing the works instructed in January 2025.
27. The landlord has failed to acknowledge the above failings. We have ordered it to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures which adversely affected the resident and takes into account her vulnerabilities.

28. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
29. The landlord issued both complaint responses in line with the timescales set out in its policy. It also demonstrated it had made reasonable attempts to contact the resident to verify the reasons for her complaint and escalation, and its responses were adequate.

Learning

30. The landlord used specialist equipment during its inspections and took steps to address the root cause, which reflects good practice highlighted in our Spotlight report on damp and mould. However, the landlord is reminded of the importance of prompt inspections.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord kept appropriate records of its visits, findings and repairs. This made it easy to understand the actions it had taken to address the resident’s reports.

Communication

32. The landlord demonstrated good practice when it attempted to contact the resident to clarify the complaint. However, it missed an opportunity to address the history of events, which would have enabled it to identify and resolve any failings earlier.