Newark and Sherwood District Council (202438422)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438422

Newark and Sherwood District Council

29 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 about damp and mould at the property.

Background

2. The resident and her partner have lived at the landlord’s property since early 2021 under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow.
3. Shortly after the beginning of the tenancy, the resident reported damp and mould at the property to the landlord. The records show that she continued to make intermittent reports after that.
4. On 31 October 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. When she did not receive a response, she complained again on 14 November 2024. These complaints have not been provided but the landlord acknowledged them on 18 November 2024, apologising for its failure to respond initially. It said the complaints were about the landlord’s failure to address damp and mould at the property, and the impact on the resident and her partner’s health issues. She also complained about the failure of an operative to provide notice for a visit and other poor behaviour by contractors.
5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 23 December 2024. It addressed her concerns about its contractors and apologised for its poor communication and the length of time it had taken to address damp and mould. It said it would be in contact about repairs.
6. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 February 2025. She said she was still experiencing damp and mould. She wanted compensation, reimbursement for running dehumidifiers and for the landlord to identify and deal with the cause of the damp and mould.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 March 2025. It apologised that it had previously failed to identify the source of the issues at the property. It set out an action plan to deal with the problem. It offered compensation of £360 and to pay £51 for additional electrical costs. It also said it would implement training with surveyors and repairs supervisors to ensure properties are fully inspected in the future.
8. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord recognised that the resident had in fact reported damp and mould earlier than it previously claimed. It increased its compensation to £3000, which it paid on 13 March 2025.
9. The resident came to the Ombudsman in April 2025. She said the issues with damp and mould continued at the property and she wanted us to intervene to review the new harm and distress. She reported continued issues with contractors at the property, including their failure to work with consideration for vulnerable tenants.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said the landlord’s failures had had a detrimental impact on her and her partner’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. They may be able to make personal injury claims if they consider that their health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and she may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts, we will not consider it in this report.
11. The resident reported issues with the condition of the property over a period of many years. However, she did not raise a complaint with the landlord until October 2024. Complaints should be raised promptly so that landlords can take action to resolve the issues, and as time passes records become unavailable and memories fade. This investigation is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues at the property from October 2023, up to her complaint in October 2024 and the landlord’s final response to it in March 2025.
12. The resident says the issues with damp and mould at the property have continued. She has also raised further issues with contractors and about the continued impact on her household’s health. She recently complained again to the landlord.
13. If the resident remains dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to her new complaint, she can bring a fresh complaint to us which we will consider under a different reference.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at the property.

14. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress it offered was sufficient to put things right and resolve the resident’s complaint. In considering this, we consider whether its offer of redress (by way of apology, compensation and an action plan for works), met with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord acknowledged the issues the resident complained about with its contractors in its stage 1 response. She said that contractors had not given notice before attending the property and behaved poorly in other ways. She explained that she was disabled and particularly required notice. It offered an apology and said it had spoken with its trade team about the lack of consideration shown towards her. It also apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
16. However, in the resident’s February 2025 request to escalate her complaint, the landlord recorded that she was still experiencing damp and mould.
17. On or around the same time as the resident’s escalation, the landlord completed a further inspection at the property. It set out the outcome of this survey in its 3 March 2025 stage 2 response. It acknowledged that previous inspections had failed to properly recognise the source of damp at the property. It had failed to detect that the lack of heating or wall insulation in the utility room had contributed towards the issues with temperature control and humidity at the property. External wall damp meter readings indicated rising damp and a possible failed damp proof course. 
18. However, it also said that the “possibility of damp” had been “first reported” to the landlord on 12 November 2024. As it later accepted, this statement was not accurate. 
19. The records show that apart from previous reports over the years, the landlord had also raised an inspection to investigate the resident’s reports about damp and mould almost a year earlier, on 29 November 2023. The landlord’s records state that she said that while it had attended previously and advised on ventilation, the issues continued. A further record of a “support visit” in April 2024 said that she had concerns about damp and mould but that she thought it was “…sorting this out.”
20. In June 2024 the landlord raised a repair to clear the gutters. In July 2024 the landlord said that repointing was required at the back of the property. These repairs were steps considered necessary to address damp at the property.
21. Therefore, while the records indicate the landlord was not unresponsive to the issues raised, it was wrong to say the first report of the possibility of damp at the property was on 12 November 2024. The landlord’s records should have been available to it at the time of responding to her complaint and it should have acknowledged her earlier reports in its analysis of her complaint. Its failure to do so was a failure to acknowledge the prolonged impact of the issue.
22. When the landlord checked its records, it acknowledged its error. Initially, on 4 March 2025, it said it could only see reports of damp from 28 January 2022, offering compensation of £2500. However, a week later, having accepted reports had been made as far back as 2021, it increased the offer of compensation to £3000.
23. The Ombudsman would usually expect a landlord to address a complaint fully within its internal complaints process. Its failure to do so also means that it has failed to fully explain why it did not identify and address the issues effectively for such a prolonged period, its final response only providing an explanation for its failure to detect damp from November 2024.
24. Nonetheless, the landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it has since created a new post to oversee and improve its complaint handling and record keeping. This step, along with the increased offer of compensation to the resident, demonstrate it has taken some learning from the failings identified in this complaint.
25. In acknowledgement of the period the resident was living with the issues, it made a reasonable offer of compensation, which we understand the resident accepted at the time. This offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and satisfactorily resolved its failures up to the date of the revised offer.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at the property.