From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Mid Suffolk District Council (202445120)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445120

Mid Suffolk District Council

19 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since July 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow that she lives in with her partner. The resident has informed us that she lives with asthma, chronic pain and mental health issues.
  2. The resident reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord on 25 April 2023. After a number of contacts and cancelled inspections, the landlord’s contractor conducted a damp and mould survey and mould wash on 19 February 2024. On 14 March 2024, the resident reported that the damp and mould had returned. The contractor carried out another damp and mould survey as well as a mould wash on 30 November 2024.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2024. She said she had had to replace multiple pieces of furniture due to mould damage and expected to be compensated for the items. She expressed her belief that the mould was due to the insulation in her property not meeting legal requirements.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2025. It confirmed that its damp and mould consultant had visited the resident’s property on 19 February 2024 and 30 November 2024. It said that the consultant reported that the resident’s property was cluttered and not being adequately heated or ventilated, which was creating condensation. It informed the resident that the photograph she had supplied of her headboard supported the contractor’s diagnosis of condensation. It advised as the photograph was from 2021, it was unable to consider it as part of its compensation policy. It went on to tell the resident that it had identified the need for further ventilation and would therefore be installing new mechanical extractor fans to assist in the removal of excess moisture. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 February 2025. She said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response, which she felt blamed her for the damp and mould. She informed the landlord the issue had been ongoing since she moved to the property in 2021 and many items had been destroyed by the mould. She disputed that she was not ventilating the property correctly. She felt the landlord had been disrespectful instead of acknowledging that the issue was due to the lack of insulation, which was illegal. She said she wanted it to acknowledge its errors and provide compensation.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 March 2025. It said:
    1. The resident had reported damp and mould on several occasions since 2021. Its policy only allowed investigations into the previous 12 months. However, it had included events since mid-2023.
    2. Its contractor had arranged to visit on 24 August 2023 and 2 September 2023, but the resident had cancelled both visits.
    3. Its contractor’s opinion, and that of its damp and mould manager, was that the moisture build up was due to a lack of air flow through the property.
    4. On 11 February 2025, the resident had provided photographs showing the effects of damp and mould in the property, including damage to belongings. It had reviewed these photographs and believed they supported its diagnosis of condensation due to restricted airflow.
    5. To improve airflow, it had installed new extractor fans in the property on 20 February 2025.
    6. The insulation in the property was not illegal as the resident had suggested. The property’s current Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating was a D, which complied with current standards. It had arranged for new insulation to be installed to improve the EPC rating as required.
    7. It did not feel that its stage 1 response blamed the resident. However, it accepted that it could be upsetting to be told that improvements to her living style were required. It was deeply sorry for any distress it had caused.
    8. It had acted in line with the information it had been provided with. The contractor had conducted 2 damp and mould surveys and carried out mould washes during both visits. It had also recommended new extractor fans. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  7. As an outcome, the resident told us she wanted the landlord to acknowledge it was at fault and to compensate her for her damaged goods.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions have reportedly had on her health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. While this report may reference some historical events for the purposes of context, the focus of this investigation will be on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 25 April 2023 onwards. This is because, under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to a member landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. However, all the evidence provided by both parties has been considered.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, said landlords should have a zero-tolerance to damp issues; communicate effectively internally and with residents; consider the vulnerabilities of households; and deal with such issues in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy was introduced on 10 December 2024. Within the policy it acknowledges its duty to repair and maintain its properties. Any repairs identified after damp and mould surveys will be allocated as a responsive repair and be completed within 20 working days.
  4. On 30 January 2024, the landlord created its damp and mould policy, in which it acknowledges that properties should be free of dampness as this is prejudicial to the health of occupants. The policy further outlines that the landlord will:
    1. Investigate to determine the cause of damp, mould and condensation and deliver effective solutions.
    2. Ensure its resident engagement strikes the right tone and provides support to help residents avoid condensation, damp and mould.
    3. Advise residents how to control moisture levels through ventilation and heating, where condensation is present.
    4. Pay compensation if it fails to deliver the service it has committed to. This includes where furniture or goods have been damaged and/or distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make compensation payments where there has been a delay in providing a service or where it has failed to follow its own policies or procedures. Such payments are to recognise time, distress or the inconvenience caused. The guidance outlines a range of payments from £50 where there has been a low impact up to £500 for high impact. Regarding damaged goods, the landlord states it will not pay compensation where the damage occurred more than 6 months before it is made aware.
  6. The resident has indicated that she experienced damp and mould when she moved into the property in 2021. The first record in the evidence provided to us shows the resident contacted the landlord about damp and mould on 25 April 2023. It was not until 26 July 2023 (3 months later) that a referral visit for its contractor was created. We acknowledge that the landlord did not have published timescales for its repairs at the time. Nonetheless, the time taken by the landlord to action the resident’s report was unreasonable.
  7. Further, the landlord failed to adhere to the guidance in our spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021), which required landlords to deal with such issues in a timely manner. The delay would have likely left the resident feeling that her complaint was not a priority for the landlord.
  8. On 3 August 2023, the contractor arranged an appointment with the resident to inspect the property on 29 August 2023. The resident cancelled this inspection as well as the re-arranged inspection on 2 September 2023. The landlord’s attempt to inspect the property, and offer of a second option after the cancelled appointment, was appropriate. At this point it would have been helpful for the landlord to have communicated with the resident to understand the reason for the cancelations. It could then have also discussed options for arranging a new inspection and explained what would happen in the event of any future missed appointments.
  9. On 17 November 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was still experiencing damp and mould in the property and that she had asthma. Unreasonably, there is no evidence that anyone responded to her report. This led to the resident having to contact the landlord again on 30 January 2024 before it took any action. This 2-month delay is further evidence of poor communication by the landlord, which led to avoidable delay that would have been frustrating for the resident.
  10. The contractor conducted its first damp and mould survey on 19 February 2024, 10 months after the resident’s first contact on 25 April 2023. Even considering the resident’s 2 cancelled appointments, this timeframe was unacceptable and demonstrated a lack of urgency by the landlord. Our spotlight report on damp and mould additionally encourages landlords to recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner.
  11. During the survey, the contractor conducted a mould wash in the bedroom and bathroom. In its summary of the survey, it advised that the resident was not following best practice regarding heating and ventilation but was following best practice in relation to clutter. It confirmed it offered her advice on these aspects. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s new damp and mould policy.
  12. The contractor also found the bathroom extractor fan was not working appropriately and was “contributing to excessive moisture build up resulting in condensation”. The post-survey report made a recommendation to replace the extractor fan. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on this recommendation until 11 November 2024, which was a failure to adhere to its damp and mould policy.
  13. On 14 March 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had been following the advice of the contractor but that the damp and mould had returned. She did not hear back from the landlord and had to contact it again on 9 and 16 April 2024. This shows ongoing poor communication by the landlord that caused the resident further time and trouble.
  14. The contractor attempted to call the resident on 18 and 19 April 2024 to arrange an appointment for 9 May 2024, but was unable to speak to her. The parties then spoke on 22 April 2024. The resident informed the landlord that her floor was wet, which she suspected was from an uninsulated external wall. While the records are not clear, the landlord advised that it had arranged an appointment in April 2024, which the resident cancelled. One of the recommendations from our spotlight report on damp and mould was that landlords should have processes in place to follow up with residents to rearrange missed appointments promptly. However, it was not until 6 months later, on 28 November 2024, that the contractor arranged an appointment for 30 November 2024. This was another significant delay that was unreasonable and likely left the resident feeling deprioritised. It was also further evidence of the landlord not complying with the requirements of its damp and mould policy to be proactive and resolve issues in a “timely and effective way”.
  15. The contractor visited on 30 November 2024 and undertook a damp and mould survey. During the survey, the contractor found mould in the hall, bedroom, and bathroom. In the post-survey report the contractor suggested that the mould patterns indicated that the insulation in the loft “may be compromised”. It also identified that both kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were not working correctly. The report confirmed that the resident was following best practice in relation to clutter and heating. The contractor conducted a mould wash and gave further advice on ventilating the property and confirmed that new extractor fans were required. The contractors inspection was thorough and identified further defects that were not highlighted in the previous survey.
  16. The first attempt to install the fan recommended in the survey on 19 February 2024 was not until 11 November 2024. However, the visit on 11 November 2024 was a no access visit. The landlord’s records do not show that this visit was either arranged or confirmed with the resident, which indicates poor communication and/or record keeping.
  17. The landlord installed the new fans in the resident’s property on 25 February 2025. This was 12 months after being first recommended and nearly 3 months after the 30 November 2024 survey. This timeframe was excessive and failed to comply with the newly introduced repairs policy, which required such actions to be completed within 20 working days.
  18. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it identified the dampness as condensation. It went on to quote sections of the report produced after the survey in February 2024. It quoted the advice the resident had been given in relation to clutter, ventilation and heating. The reference to clutter was inappropriate, as the contractor had marked down in the report that the resident was following best practice in relation to clutter.
  19. While it is appropriate for the landlord’s contractors to provide advice in relation to areas such as heating and ventilation, the stage 1 response suggested the resident was to blame for the issues she was experiencing. In her escalation request she said that she was “disgusted” with the response and confirmed she did feel blamed. Our damp and mould spotlight report states landlords should ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. The language used by the landlord also failed to comply with the requirements of its own damp and mould policy. The tone of its response and the language used caused the resident unnecessary distress.
  20. In conclusion, the landlord failed to act promptly and in line with its own policies. It was slow to arrange surveys and also failed to make any adjustments to its approach considering the resident’s potential vulnerability. Even taking into account the appointments cancelled by the resident, the 12 months it took the landlord to install the bathroom extractor fan and 3 months for the kitchen extractor fan was unreasonable. Its communications were mainly reactive and only in response to calls from the resident. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration.
  21. Given our finding we have made an award of £250 compensation. This is the maximum award permitted in the landlord’s policy where there has been a service failure that has led to distress and inconvenience resulting in a medium impact. The award also aligns with our own remedies guidance.
  22. As part of the resident’s complaint, she asked the landlord to compensate her for damaged goods. In its stage 1 response it referenced a picture of a sofa supplied by the resident that was dated 2021. It advised that its compensation policy would not allow it to offer compensation as more than 6 months had passed since the damage had occurred. In this instance the landlord’s response was reasonable and in compliance with its published policy.
  23. However, in the stage 2 response the landlord referenced further pictures. This time it said it could not offer compensation because it had taken the required actions when it became aware of the issues. However, from the findings outlined above we disagree with the landlord’s position. In its damp and mould policy it confirms it will pay compensation if it fails to deliver the service it has committed to. This includes where furniture or goods have been damaged. We have therefore made a recommendation below for the landlord to reconsider this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If more time is required, it will communicate this delay to the complainant.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 9 days outside its published timescales. While the delay was not excessive and did not cause any significant detriment, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the delay and apologised.
  3. In its complaint responses, the landlord failed to identify its own shortcomings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There were numerous significant delays in responding to communications and arranging surveys. In addition, there were defects identified whose contribution to the damp and mould was not given due regard. However, the landlord did not identify these or recognise the impact the delays had on the length of time it took to resolve the resident’s complaint. This was unfair and was frustrating for her, as expressed in her escalation request and communication with this Service.
  4. Further, the landlord appropriately recognised that its stage 1 response lacked empathy. Nonetheless, it did not offer any compensation for this or the substantive element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaints process failed to provide a resolution for the resident, which has led to a finding of maladministration. We have therefore ordered it to pay a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Again, our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £400. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
      1. £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
      2. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. As a result of the delays identified in the landlord’s processes it should reconsider, upon the production of the necessary evidence by the resident, its refusal to offer compensation for any goods damaged by mould between April 2023 and February 2025.