Oxford City Council (202505886)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with two children and her tenancy started in May 2021. She was pregnant at the time of her complaint. The resident reported damp and mould, poor soundproofing, and anti-social behaviour. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey and completed works, issued warnings for neighbour incidents, and explored options to reduce noise. The resident complained to the landlord that the issues continued despite its efforts and brought her complaint to us as she was dissatisfied with its responses.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports of anti-social behaviour.
   3. Reports of no soundproofing.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlords response to anti-social behaviour.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlords response of no soundproofing.
   4. No maladministration in the landlords response to the residents complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord delayed responding to damp and mould reports for four months, outside its guidance timescales, and did not acknowledge this. It also did not address the resident’s concerns about an operative’s conduct.

Reports of anti-social behaviour

5. The landlord applied its ASB policy appropriately, maintained contact, and took proportionate steps including warnings and evidence gathering. Opportunities for further enforcement was limited due to insufficient evidence and the noise being assessed as not meeting the ASB threshold.

Reports of no soundproofing

6. The landlord reasonably investigated noise reports, found no statutory nuisance, and took proportionate steps including evidence gathering, monitoring, and issuing a warning when appropriate.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord failed to meet its complaint handling timescales, with stage 2 delayed by over five months. However, it acknowledged this and offered satisfactory redress aligned with the Ombudsman’s remedies.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

8. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said she had experienced damp, mould, and noise issues since the start of her tenancy. However, she did not raise a formal complaint with the landlord until December 2024. Complaints should be raised promptly so landlords can act and because, over time, records may become harder to obtain and recollections may fade. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from June 2023 up to her complaint in December 2024 and the landlord’s final response in July 2025.

Reports of damp and mould

9. At the time of the resident’s complaint in December 2024, the landlord did not have a damp and mould or specific repairs policy. Its online guidance states that repairs should be completed within 28 working days or included in a planned programme.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response in January 2025, the landlord stated that the resident first reported damp and mould in June 2023. There are records of earlier reports, although there is no evidence of a formal complaint until December 2024.
11. The landlord said the resident reported that damp and mould had returned in August 2024 and then raised a complaint in December 2024. Records show that the landlord attended in December 2024 and carried out a full survey in January 2025. The survey identified damp, mould, and condensation and set out the work required.
12. In her complaint escalation in January 2025, the resident said damp and mould were present in all rooms but only one had been treated. She also complained that one operative had said the problem was due to her behaviour. Records show several jobs were raised for mould treatment and ventilation improvements. Appointments were rescheduled at the residents request, and one visit in February 2025 was missed due to no access. A fungicidal wash was carried out on 7 March 2025, but only the lounge window was treated as the resident asked for other rooms to be done later.
13. A review on 27 March 2025 found outstanding work, including pipe lagging and window replacement. Further treatment took place on 27 May 2025, and a job was raised on 11 July 2025 to wash down all affected areas. Work was briefly paused to assist the resident with moving items in the property. Internal emails in July confirm all works were complete except the bathroom pipe work and a mould wash. The mould wash was delayed at the resident’s request as she was pregnant at the time. The bathroom pipe was completed on 9 July 2025 and mould treatment on 15 July 2025.
14. In its final complaint response in July 2025, the landlord acknowledged delays in the bathroom pipe work. Records show an operative said the work was not required, despite the work being raised following a survey, a later survey again confirmed it was. Poor communication contributed to the delay. The landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation.
15. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the four-month delay between the August 2024 report and its December 2024 response, which was significantly outside its timescales and unreasonable for an issue as important as damp and mould. No explanation or redress was offered. It also did not address the resident’s concerns about the surveyor’s conduct.
16. The landlord said it would carry out a final inspection, but it is unclear if this took place. It told the Service all works were complete and no further reports have been received. If further issues arise, it will monitor atmospheric conditions. However, it did not provide evidence all works were completed and during recent communication with the resident, she told the Service that areas of damp and mould have been left untreated and all rooms within her home have not been treated. Given that the landlord committed to monitor and the resident reported to us that problems have remained or reoccurred an order has been made for the landlord to inspect the current situation. 
17. While the landlord offered reasonable redress for the delay in completing the bathroom pipework, it did not acknowledge the significant initial delay, or its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint about its operative’s conduct, leaving the complaint unresolved.

18. The resident reported repeated noise from her neighbour from June 2024, including banging, shouting, DIY sounds and late-night appliance use. She also alleged harassment and intimidation by two neighbours in October and November 2024.
19. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to respond to reports likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Criminal matters must be referred to the police, and for nuisance behaviour such as minor noise, it aims to contact the victim within five working days. It says the landlord will not investigate without supporting evidence, which includes incident diaries and recordings through the noise app. It does not investigate reasonable domestic noise such as DIY or household appliances.
20. In this case, the evidence shows the landlord opened several ASB cases following the resident’s reports. Its ASB and community response teams assessed the reported noise as general living noise, which did not meet the threshold for ASB or statutory nuisance. It shared information with the police when allegations of criminal behaviour were reported and signposted the resident to support agencies.
21. To assist evidence gathering, the landlord asked the resident to use the noise app and incident diary and it maintained regular contact. Enforcement was limited to written warnings and advice. Records show letters were sent to two neighbours on 21 October and 27 November 2024 following harassment reports, and the resident was informed. No legal action was taken due to insufficient evidence. These actions were in line were in line with its policy.
22. Due to the complexity of the case, the landlord arranged a problem-solving meeting involving the police, ASB team, tenancy management, and the community response team. Although the meeting was subsequently cancelled, the landlord then visited the resident on 27 November 2024, and it installed the noise app onto the residents phone to help collect evidence.
23. Overall, the landlord applied its ASB policy appropriately, reviewed the resident’s reports, sought evidence and maintained communication. However, the absence of sufficient evidence meant enforcement options were limited, and the noise was concluded as general living noise. The landlord’s handling of the issue was overall reasonable and appropriate.

24. The resident complained that the noise issue she was experiencing was at least partly due to poor soundproofing in the property. During a visit in November 2024, the landlord told her that while soundproofing was poor, it complied with building regulations.
25. In its complaint response, the landlord said it visited on 4 December 2024 and found no noise issues linked to poor insulation.
26. In July 2025, it confirmed the flooring in the flat above was carpet, not laminate, which would breach tenancy conditions.
27. In its stage 2 response in July 2025, the landlord committed to exploring further options to reduce noise transmission. It said soundproofing might not be feasible due to fire safety regulations but would continue to consider other measures.
28. While landlords must consider issues of noise nuisance and address them where necessary, they are not usually obliged to improve a property’s general noise insulation quality beyond whatever is needed to resolve any repair issues. In this case there were no repair issues. The landlord inspected the property and the neighbouring one and found nothing that could be actively impacting the existing noise insulation. It accurately explained its actions and conclusions but also remained open to the possibility of future options. Nothing in the evidence indicates its response to the issue was unreasonable. 

29. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement, or explain any extension, which should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days, with any extension limited to a further 20 days with explanation. Its process is in alignment with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
30. The resident complained on 6 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 16 December, seven working days later, and issued an extension on 6 January 2025. It provided its stage 1 response on 20 January, 11 working days after the extension.
31. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 January 2025, but the landlord did not acknowledge this until 14 July 2025, after contact from the Ombudsman. It apologised and issued its stage 2 response on 17 July, offering £150 compensation for the significant delay.
32. The landlord did not meet its policy requirements for timely responses. While stage 1 was completed within the extended timeframe, stage 2 was not acknowledged or addressed for over five months. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged its delay and offered redress which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies for a delay of this scale.

Learning

33. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould. The report recommends a zero-tolerance approach, proactive action, and avoiding blame on residents. It highlights the need for clear policies, senior oversight, accurate records, and timely action to address root causes and health risks, supported by effective communication, data analysis, and continuous improvement.