North Northamptonshire Council (202505354)

Background

1. The resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in his property which he said had remained unresolved following a previous inspection. He also said he had cerebral palsy and had recently suffered a stroke and was sleeping in the lounge where he considered the damp and mould to be most severe.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Resident’s report of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents report of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the damp and mould

4. The landlord delayed investigating and resolving the resident’s damp and mould reports, failed to provide updates on earlier investigations, did not consider what support or reasonable adjustments may have been required to enable the resident to access its service, and failed to put matters right through its complaint process

Handling of the complaint

5. While the landlord responded to the complaint within its published timescales, its complaint responses were inadequate and poor. They failed to fully address the issues raised, provide clear findings, or explain the reasons for its decisions, depriving the resident of a meaningful complaint review.

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.

6. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate reports of damp and mould, identify and address underlying causes, keep residents informed, take appropriate remedial action, and prioritise vulnerable residents.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 February 2025 regarding a damp and mould letter he said he had received. He disputed the letter’s statement that attempts had been made to contact him and said he had not been contacted. He requested clarification and a call back to discuss the matter.
8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 March 2025. He said damp and mould issues remained unresolved and referred to a previous inspection, monitoring activity, and correspondence relating to the matter. He also said he believed an external drainpipe was contributing to the problem. During the same contact, he informed the landlord that he had cerebral palsy, had recently suffered a stroke, and was sleeping in the lounge affected by the damp and mould.
9. The landlord’s repairs records do not show any damp and mould reports, inspections, monitoring activity, or repairs before March 2025. When asked for further information, it said its Housing Property Services did not maintain a database of letters sent to residents.
10. As a result, it is not clear whether the earlier events described by the resident occurred, or what action, if any, the landlord had taken before March 2025. If the landlord did not hold records relating to the matters raised, it would have been reasonable for it to explain this and set out its understanding of the history of the case, particularly as the resident had requested clarification about previous contact and correspondence. It did not do so
11. Regardless, the landlord was aware by February 2025 that there was a dispute relating to a damp and mould and that the resident was seeking clarification. By 10 March 2025, it had also been informed that the resident considered the issue unresolved.
12. In accordance with its damp and mould policy, the landlord should have investigated the matter and taken appropriate action. The landlord did not inspect the property until 21 March 2025, around 5 weeks after the resident’s contact on 12 February 2025. During that inspection, it identified damp and mould requiring treatment, confirming that remedial works were necessary.
13. The landlord attended again on 25 March 2025 but advised that moving a wardrobe to gain access would be a chargeable service. The resident declined. On 9 April 2025, he informed the landlord that he could not move the wardrobe himself and asked whether the treatment could proceed. There is no evidence the landlord showed due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. It also demonstrated a lack of desire to carry out the works to its asset which was the resident’s home.
14. At that stage, the landlord was aware of the resident’s reported health conditions. Its Vulnerable Residents and Reasonable Adjustments Policy says it should recognise and respond appropriately to vulnerabilities and consider reasonable adjustments when delivering services.
15. The Equality Act 2010 also provides a relevant framework for landlords to consider the needs of residents who may have disabilities. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether any support, assistance, or reasonable adjustments were required to enable access for the works. However, it has not provided evidence that it considered this, explored alternative solutions, or assessed the resident’s circumstances when deciding how to progress the treatment.
16. The mould treatment was completed on 23 May 2025, around 2 months after the inspection identified that works were required. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took appropriate action to progress the mould treatment after the resident contacted it on 9 April 2025, or that it kept him informed of progress, in line with its policy.
17. Overall, the landlord failed to maintain adequate records of the matter and did not provide a clear explanation regarding the resident’s concerns about earlier inspections, monitoring activity, and correspondence. Following the reports made in February and March 2025, it identified damp and mould requiring treatment but did not explain the delay in completing the works or demonstrate that it kept the resident informed. In addition, despite being aware of the resident’s reported health conditions, it failed to demonstrate that it considered the impact of those circumstances when progressing the treatment.
18. These failings caused the resident uncertainty, distress, inconvenience, and avoidable time and trouble pursuing the matter. The impact was increased because the landlord had been informed that the resident had cerebral palsy, had recently suffered a stroke, and said he was sleeping in the lounge. The resident had also linked the damp and mould concerns to that area of the property. While we cannot determine the extent to which the damp and mould affected the resident personally, the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered his reported circumstances when delivering its service.
19. The complaint process presented a further opportunity for the landlord to acknowledge these failings, explain its actions, and consider appropriate redress. However, its complaint responses did not adequately address the record-keeping issues, acknowledge its delay in completing the treatment, or demonstrate that consideration had been given to the resident’s reported vulnerabilities. The complaint process therefore failed to put things right and missed an opportunity to restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s service
20. While the level of damp and mould identified when the works were completed was not significant, the landlord’s failings caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. In recognition of this, and taking into account his circumstances, we have ordered proportionate compensation.

21. The landlord uses a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
22. While we have not seen the landlord’s acknowledgements at either stage of the complaint process, the landlord responded at stage 1 and stage 2 within the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
23. However, its complaint responses were inadequate. The resident complained about the landlord’s communication and repeated this concern when he escalated his complaint. The Code requires landlords to address all elements of a complaint and provide a fair and reasoned response to the issues raised. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about communication at either stage of its complaint process.
24. The stage 2 response was particularly poor. It provided no meaningful explanation for the landlord’s decision, no findings on the evidence, and no indication that it had considered the concerns raised throughout the complaint process. It also did not identify any outstanding actions, despite the damp and mould treatment remaining unresolved at the time.
25. As a result, the landlord’s approach in its response showed an unreasonable lack of thoroughness. The landlord’s responses demonstrated a dismissive attitude towards the resident and left him feeling unheard. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered proportionate compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide satisfactory complaint responses.

Learning

26. This case highlights the value of complaint responses that clearly address the substance of a resident’s concerns. Taking the opportunity to show that concerns have been listened to and carefully considered can help residents feel their experiences have been taken seriously and may improve confidence in the complaint outcome.
27. The landlord could take learning from this case by reflecting on how it supports vulnerable customers and its approach to reasonable adjustments

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. This case highlights the importance of maintaining clear records of communications, appointments and actions taken to progress repairs. Good record keeping supports effective service delivery and provides assurance that residents’ circumstances have been appropriately considered.

Communication

29. The landlord would benefit from reviewing its communication practices to ensure residents are not required to repeatedly chase for responses or updates on reported issues.