Mid Devon District Council (202539571)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202539571

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Mid Devon District Council

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

28 August 2026

Background

  1. The resident moved into the property in May 2025. From July 2025 he made reports about noise disturbance from a neighbouring property. In October 2025 the resident made a report of damp and mould to the landlord. He complained that the landlord did not address the damp and mould and put his health at risk. The resident has asthma which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of noise disturbance
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
    3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of noise disturbance is outside our jurisdiction.
    2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. Because the council was not acting in its capacity as a landlord when it investigated the resident’s complaint about noise disturbance, the complaint does not fall under our jurisdiction.
  2. Our investigation has found that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action between October 2025 and February 2026. It acted in line with Awaab’s Law when the resident first reported damp and mould, undertook a robust investigation of the cause of the damp and mould, gave the resident advice, made referrals acted on surveyor recommendations, and completed appropriate repairs where it could.
  3. Whilst there was a slight delay issuing the first stage 1 response, it did not impact the resident. We did not find any other issues with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to explain its position on the outstanding repairs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

6 November 2025

The resident made a stage 1 complaint. He said:

  • the landlord had not told him about the damp and mould in the property before he moved in
  • the damp and mould were causing severe and potentially life-threatening health issues, and the property was unfit for human habitation
  • the landlord had not taken all reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate and address the issue

25 November 2025

The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said:

  • it completed a pre-mutual exchange inspection in March 2025 which showed the property was in good condition and there were no signs of damp and mould
  • the resident reported damp and mould on 27 October 2025 and the landlord scheduled an inspection for 31 October 2025 which was the resident’s earliest availability
  • the inspection identified that the mould was caused by excessive moisture and the resident turned the heating off because it was too expensive
  • the landlord told the resident it would treat the mould, repair kitchen fan ducting and install an environmental monitoring system
  • it gave him information on how to contact Exeter Community Energy (ECOE) if he wanted advice about energy efficiency, costs and management, and said it had arranged a further damp and mould inspection
  • it was satisfied these steps were reasonable and proportionate and it had not found any evidence of failure to act within legislative requirements
  • it did a mould wash on 18 November 2025
  • it completed a more comprehensive inspection on 19 November 2025 which raised repairs for new loft insulation, new heaters, a drain across the gully and bathroom fan ducting
  • it had offered suitable and effective responses to address matters when the resident informed if of damp and mould concerns

21 January 2026

The resident made a new stage 1 complaint. He said:

  • the landlord had broken Awaab’s Law
  • the landlord had not adequately sorted the damp and mould issue
  • the property was well heated and ventilated
  • the mould had caused £6,000 worth of damage to his personal property

28 January 2026

The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It referred the resident to its response of 25 November 2025. It said it did not agree that it had not taken steps to address his damp and mould concerns and its records showed it had:

  • upgraded the resident’s heating
  • carried out a mould wash
  • installed environmental monitoring equipment which helped it monitor household temperatures, humidity and Co2 levels
  • checked the extraction fan in the bathroom to ensure it was working efficiently
  • offered a full Housing Heath Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection
  • offered for a surveyor to carry out a structural survey of the property and had made an appointment for 4 February 2026
  • made a referral on the resident’s behalf to ECOE for energy and fuel poverty advice and they had visited him on 14 January 2026 and encouraged him to check if he met the criteria for a warm home discount
  • re-laid loft insulation
  • raised a job for a drain to be installed

The landlord said:

  • it had given the resident advice about to make the property warmer and help reduce moisture
  • data from the environment monitoring system showed the temperature in the property did not reach anywhere near 27 degrees as the resident claimed, Co2 levels were high which indicated poor ventilation in the living room
  • because the damp and mould were not caused by a defect, disrepair or lack of maintenance, it could not offer compensation but if the resident had contents insurance, he could see if he could make a claim for the damage to his possessions
  • Awaab’s Law applied where the hazard resulted from a landlord-related deficiency so did not apply in this case because it was not responsible for moisture created by a resident’s behaviour where the building was fundamentally sound

29 January 2026

The resident said he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2.

17 February 2026

The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:

  • it had arranged for its contractor to carry out another mould wash
  • it had raised a job to fit an overrun timer to the bathroom extractor fan
  • it carried out a full HHSRS survey on 30 January 2026 and found no category 1 hazards, and a survey completed on 4 February 206 found no structural defects
  • it had raised jobs for any works the survey recommended
  • it had followed all guidelines and relevant legislation and had previously advised the resident on practical and effective ways to ensure the property was sufficiently heated and ventilated
  • as there was no evidence to suggest it was at fault due to there being no housing defects, it was unable to provide any compensation

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not addressed the damp and mould.

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

Reports of noise disturbance

Finding

Outside jurisdiction
  1. The resident complained that his neighbour, who was a private tenant, was causing noise disturbance. We are not free to investigate all complaints referred to us. Under our Scheme, we can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease, or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was acting in this capacity as a Local (Environmental Protection) Authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This does not form part of its housing management function.
  2. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about its handling of reports of noise nuisance. The resident may instead be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Complaint

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

Finding

No maladministration
  1. Throughout his complaint, the resident referred to how the damp and mould impacted his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him 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.
  2. Awaab’s Law came into force on 27 October 2025, the same day the resident reported damp and mould. Awaab’s Law requires social landlords to triage, complete investigations and remedial work in set times where there is an emergency or significant hazard.
  3. Once the landlord received the resident’s report, it needed to consider 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
  4. In assessing the resident’s report of damp and mould, the landlord contacted the resident the same day by telephone to ask the extent of the damp and mould, which rooms were affected and details of health conditions and vulnerabilities. This was prompt action and good practice to ensure it had the relevant information to decide if there was a potential emergency or significant hazard.
  5. As it could not get through to the resident, it asked if he would be available in the next 10 days ‘if an inspection was required’. This was not appropriate. This assumed the matter was a significant hazard as opposed to an emergency hazard, which required make safe works or alternative accommodation within 24 hours.
  6. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s response. However, the landlord called him on 28 October 2025 to make an emergency appointment to determine the cause of the damp and mould and make things safe. This means the landlord concluded from the information the resident gave that there was a potential emergency hazard. Its efforts to make an emergency appointment on 28 October 2025 were appropriate and demonstrated the landlord was trying to ensure it assessed the matter promptly.
  7. The resident said he was not available until 31 October 2025. It is open to a landlord to complete an investigation either as a physical inspection or remote inspection to determine whether emergency action or non-emergency action is required. In this case, the landlord had acted reasonably by chasing matters and asking key questions within 24 hours. It would not be fair or reasonable for the landlord to be held responsible where it could not gain access within the relevant timescales.
  8. The landlord’s inspection on 31 October 2025 did not identify an emergency or significant hazard. This meant the damp and mould fell outside the scope of Awaab’s Law because there was no immediate risk to the resident. It found the mould was mainly caused by moisture and condensation which had built up because the resident was not using ventilation and heating as intended. The resident’s comments in response to the landlord’s findings provide further weight to its position regarding the likely cause of the damp and mould. These included that he could not be expected to heat the whole house because of the cost.
  9. The resident’s tenancy handbook explains how residents can prevent condensation by keep their homes heated and well ventilated. It was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to follow its advice.
  10. Where Awaab’s Law does not apply, the landlord must still take reasonable steps to resolve damp and mould issues in line with its wider damp and mould policies to ensure properties remain fit for human habitation. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate to determine the cause of damp, mould and condensation and carry out remedial repairs and actions. Its repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 35 working days.
  11. The landlord raised a job to mould wash the property. It also arranged to install a monitoring system, to help better understand the environmental factors causing the damp, and a further inspection of the property to clarify the original findings when the resident disputed them. This was in line with its damp and mould policy and shows the landlord was focussed on resolving the issue.
  12. The inspection on 19 November 2025 again found that underheating was the main reason for the mould growth. It recommended the resident increase the heating. It also raised jobs for the landlord to repair a bathroom fan, relay loft insulation and upgrade heaters to help address the underheating issue.
  13. Between November 2025 and February 2026, the landlord completed the mould wash, re-laid loft insulation, upgraded heaters, and replaced extractor fan ducting. The landlord’s records show that it had difficulties scheduling dates with the resident for these repairs. Whilst not all the repairs were done within 35 working days, the landlord was not responsible for any delay.
  14. We can see from the resident’s ongoing contact with the landlord during this period he remained unhappy with its handling of the damp and mould. The landlord’s records show it continued to take his concerns seriously and in addition to the repairs described above also:
  1. Reviewed the data given by the environmental monitoring system which indicated poor ventilation and heating in the property.
  2. Arranged for ECOE to visit him on 14 January 2026 to give him advice and support around heating use, energy costs and managing his home affordably.
  3. Completed an HHSRS inspection on 30 January 2026, which found no serious or immediate health and safety risks.
  4. Completed an independent survey of the property on 4 February 2026. The surveyor recorded that underheating was the sole cause of the high humidity, condensation and mould and made short, medium and long-term recommendations to help remedy the issue.
  1. The repairs recommended on 4 February 2026 remain outstanding. This is because of concerns about the resident’s behaviour towards staff and contractors. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to be respectful to staff and contractors, so the landlord’s decision was reasonable. We have however recommended that the landlord writes to the resident to explain its current position on the repairs.
  2. It is clear from the resident’s ongoing communication with the landlord that he was distressed by the damp and mould problem. However, the landlord made constructive efforts to satisfy itself about the cause of the damp and mould, took appropriate action to address them in line with its policies and fully explained its position to the resident.
  3. Whilst the resident did not agree with the landlord’s findings about the damp and mould, it completed 4 inspections in 4 months which all identified under heating as the main cause. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff and contractors, unless information suggests otherwise, which is not evident here.
  4. The landlord also said it would not pay compensation because its failings had not caused the damp and mould. It advised the resident to claim for damaged personal belongings through his home contents insurance. Whilst this in line with its compensation policy, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to its own insurers if he wanted to make a liability claim.

Complaint

Complaint handling

Finding

No maladministration
  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. This is in line with our complaints handling policy.
  2. There was a slight delay issuing the stage 1 response in November 2025. However, this did not affect the outcome for the resident. The landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 complaints in January and February 2026 within its policy timescales.
  3. In its complaint responses between November 2025 and February 2026 the landlord clearly explained its findings and the action it had taken or would take. Its stage 2 response was particularly comprehensive and addressed each of the resident’s individual concerns.
  4. We have found no other failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went happened.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s communication with the resident was good. It responded promptly to his communications about the damp and mould issue.