Slough Borough Council (202305272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305272

Slough Borough Council

28 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. He has lived there with his partner and children since January 2019. The landlord has told us it is aware the resident and his partner have a number of vulnerabilities, including having asthma.
In November 2022 the resident reported there was damp and mould in his property. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 13 December 2022 and 27 March 2023. On 30 June 2023 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection.
On 18 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould repairs. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2024. It said a number of repairs had been due to take place in January 2024. But the resident had cancelled them. The landlord said it would reschedule the repairs when it was convenient with the resident.
The resident escalated his compliant on 30 August 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, dated 18 October 2024, apologised the issues remained unresolved. It said it had been unable to access the property for a period of time. The landlord set out a list of outstanding repairs that it would complete. It said it would consider compensation for damaged items when the repairs had been completed.
The resident remained dissatisfied. The resident’s representative (his partner) brought the complaint to us with his permission. For readability, they will both be referred to as the resident in the remainder of this assessment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted his family’s health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Damp and mould

The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will repair the structure of the property. The landlord does not have a published damp and mould procedure. Its responsive repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
On 12 December 2022 the resident reported mould throughout his property. The landlord attended the following day and completed a mould wash. This response was in line with policy.
On 9 January 2023 the resident reported the mould had returned. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 27 March 2023. Its response was 35 days later than required by its repairs policy timescales.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. This assessment method focuses on the hazards that are present in housing. Tackling these hazards will make housing healthier and safer to live in.
HHSRS identifies damp and mould as a hazard in a residential property. It states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, potentially causing breathing difficulties and asthma.
The evidence shows following the landlord’s original treatment for mould, the mould returned within 4 weeks. Given this short timeframe and the vulnerabilities of the occupants, it would have been reasonable to expect a sense of urgency from the landlord to establish the root cause of the issue as part of its treatment on 9 January 2023. There is no evidence it conducted works beyond a mould wash for the affected area.
The resident reported the mould had returned again on 10 May 2023. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey on 30 June 2023. The landlord’s response was 12 days later than its repairs policy timescales. The evidence shows that some repairs were required as a result of the survey. However, evidence provided to us do not make clear the nature of those repairs. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the survey.
The resident raised a complaint on 18 September 2023. By the time of the complaint the landlord had not attempted to complete any repairs.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised the following repairs to address the damp and mould:
1. Install environmental sensors to monitor humidity within the property.
2. Conduct a further mould wash.
3. Check windows and brickwork for water penetration.
The mould wash was carried out on 4 October 2024. The windows and brickwork were checked on the same day. The landlord’s notes recorded there was no issue with the brickwork. However, the inspection noted the gasket seals needed to be replaced on the windows.
The environmental sensors were initially scheduled to be installed in January 2024. The records show these were installed on 8 October 2024. The sensors monitored the humidity levels in the property going forward. It is reasonable the landlord chose to schedule installation of the sensors after the other two identified works were conducted.
Further notes dated 11 October 2023 said the windows “had to be the main cause” of the mould build-up within the property.
The landlord attended the property again on 6 December 2023 to inspect the windows for a second time. Its notes again recorded new gasket seals were needed for the windows. It is unclear why a second inspection was required. The repair was scheduled to take place in January 2024.
The repairs scheduled for January did not take place at the resident’s request. He informed the landlord he would be unable to allow access to the property until March 2024 due to personal issues. On 18 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delays in addressing the issue and said:
1. Previous leaks (outside of this complaint) may have contributed to the damp and mould in the property.
2. The January repair appointments had been cancelled at the request of the resident. It would schedule new repair dates when the resident would allow the work to take place.
3. It committed to plastering and repainting once the mould treatment had settled.
The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the resident had been suffering with damp and mould for a least 14 months. It also failed to account for why it had not completed the repairs at an earlier date following its survey in June 2023. While the resident was responsible for cancelling the repairs in January 2024, the landlord had 6 months prior to that to take action.
The resident told us the issues which prevented the works taking place in January were resolved in March 2024, and the landlord was made aware that access to the property would be granted. No works took place in March 2024. The landlord carried out a further survey of the property on 23 May 2024 and noted:
1. A further mould wash was required.
2. The bathroom fan needed to be replaced
3. A positive input ventilation unit (PIV) was required which would run from the children’s bedroom to the hallway.
On 31 May 2024 the landlord raised the repairs required from its latest survey. The mould wash was completed on 18 July 2024, 19 days later than its repairs policy timescales. The remaining repairs were still outstanding by this time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 August 2024 and said his child was having frequent asthma attacks. He said the condition of the property was impacting the health of his family and he wanted to move out. The landlord did not reply.
The landlord does not have a decant policy. Decant is a term used when a tenant is temporarily moved from their property to allow repairs to take place. In the circumstances that were reported by the resident, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to consider decanting the resident. This was particularly important given the vulnerabilities of the occupants and length of time they had been living with damp and mould in their home.
On 30 August 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the mould wash had not helped and other repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord contacted the resident on 30 September 2024 to arrange the repairs identified in the survey of May 2024. The resident queried the outstanding repairs for the windows and was informed a further inspection would be carried out. The resident subsequently raised concerns about the damage caused to his ceilings and doors from the damp.
The evidence shows the windows were identified as needing repair 11 months earlier. At the time of the relevant inspection the landlord considered this to be the main cause of the damp and mould. It is unreasonable that the landlord had neither actioned the required repairs by this point, or had the ability to effectively case manage the resident’s reports and complaints. This resulted in the repetition of inspections, where the fault was already known.
The landlord’s notes, dated 1 October 2024, recorded the damp and mould was significant enough to be affecting the health of the children in the property. It was also noted the resident had said the smell was affecting the family’s mental health and the children were being bullied at school because of it. The landlord carried out a further damp and mould survey at the property on 4 October 2024. The landlord was unable to provide us with a copy of the survey report.
The following day the landlord agreed additional measures with the resident for communicating scheduled appointments. The landlord’s notes state this was due to visits to the property that could not take place due to no access. The evidence is unclear as to when these unsuccessful visits took place.
On 7 October 2024 the landlord completed a damp and mould survey at the property and a technical inspection. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence of what the survey / inspection found.
The landlord attended the property to replace the bathroom fan on 8 October 2024, 76 days later than its repairs policy timescales. The repair could not be completed due the wall containing a metal plate. An appointment was made with the resident for 16 October 2024 for an alternative solution to be fitted.
The landlord’s internal emails dated 17 October 2024 recorded it had considered the possibility of an urgent move for the resident. The emails said an urgent move was not warranted as it could resolve the issues.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2024. It apologised the issues remained unresolved and said:
1. It had been unable to gain access to the property for a “considerable amount of time”.
2. When access was granted, it carried out a further survey in May 2024 and allocated the repairs to its contractor.
3. The contractor was unable to contact the resident to confirm appointments. An oversight by the landlord delayed further contact with the resident until 30 September 2024, when the repairs were then scheduled.
4. It would consider compensating the resident for damage to personal belongings if he provided evidence and receipts. It would also wait until the repairs had been completed before considering this.
5. It had compiled a detailed action plan from its visit on 7 October 2024, and the following outstanding repairs would be completed:
  1. Full window replacement
  2. Further mould treatment.
  3. Making good and redecoration of walls and ceilings.
  4. Treatment of all internal doors, trimming of bedroom doors to allow ventilation, and replacement of bathroom and living room doors.
  5. External bedroom walls to be treated with “bio check paint”.
  6. Cut out brickwork where obstruction is present.
  7. Full cavity clearance of property.
  8. Treatment of pebbledash area under front bedroom external wall.
  9. Renewal of bathroom.
  10. Fit PIV in the hallway.
The majority of the repairs set out in the stage 2 response were completed by November 2024. The PIV was completed on 1 November 2024, 94 days later than its repairs policy timescales. The window replacement took place on 27 February 2025, 16 months after the landlord had identified the windows were the “main cause” of the damp and mould. The making good and redecorating was completed on 7 April 2025.
On 2 May 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident and said his request for compensation had been considered. It offered him £472 compensation and said this was based on a 10% rent reduction from 13 August 2024 to 7 April 2024.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was made over 29 months after it was informed of the damp and mould issue. While we welcome the fact the landlord looked to revisit the issue and try and put things right, its compensation offer was 7 months after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on the issue. Considering the time which has passed, this affected the degree to which the offer puts right the clear failings by the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy states if a resident claims they have suffered a financial loss, due to the inaction of the landlord, the complaint must be referred to its insurance advisors. There is no evidence the landlord consulted its insurance advisors on the resident’s request to be compensated for damage to furnishings and personal belongings.
The resident has told us that while the repairs have been completed, there is still a problem with damp and mould at the property. He said the smell remains and this is partly down to furnishings damaged by the damp and mould. The resident also said the mould is reappearing where paint has flaked off. The landlord has not provided evidence of any subsequent inspection to satisfy itself the works have been effective.
The resident said he does not want to report further issues as he is made to feel like he is at fault. The resident’s reluctance to make further reports to the landlord is indicative of a loss in confidence in the landlord and a further breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord was not proactive at the start of the timeline about identifying the root cause of a hazard in the resident’s home and having a plan to tackle it. It repeatedly failed to meet the timescales set out in its policy when responding to the resident’s reports. When it did conduct its first survey, 6 months after the issue was first reported, it failed to act upon its survey results until 3 months later. This was indicative of poor management of the issue that was present from the onset and a key and significant failure by the landlord to grip the situation.
It is accepted the landlord was unable to access the property between January 2024 and March 2024 while the resident dealt with personal issues. However, at this stage the landlord had been aware of the issue for 13 months. It had 6 months by this point to complete the repairs following its first survey of the property. This was further evidence of poor management which resulted in a significant service failure for the resident.
The continuous cycle of surveys and delayed repairs left the resident living with the issue for 28 months. The landlord failed to consider any kind of move until the day before it issued its stage 2 response. This caused the resident great distress and inconvenience. The resident’s level of communication and content of the emails and phone calls made would have made it clear to the landlord the impact its failings were having.
The landlord’s rationale for not moving the family at this point was because the issues could be resolved. This decision, whilst technically correct, lacked empathy and a wider consideration which adds to the distress in this case. This is because scenario that led to potential need to rehome the family, were due to the landlord’s lack of ability to resolve those issues it referred to as being resolvable.
The condition of the windows was determined as the “main cause” of the damp and mould during an inspection in October 2023. Despite this, the landlord took 16 months to rectify the issue. This was significant failing and caused the resident further distress over a prolonged period.
The evidence shows the landlord had further problems with access following the stage 2 response. There is no evidence the resident was a factor in the inability to gain access prior to this, that would have accounted for these substantial delays. It took the landlord until October 2024 to consider additional measures to gain access to the property. This is further evidence of the landlord not having a proactive approach to the issue as a whole is indicative of the poor management of the resident’s case.
The prolonged delays to completing the repairs impacted the extent to which the resident’s furnishings and belongings were damaged. On the balance of probabilities, the resident’s need to replace these items would not have arisen had the landlord effected the required repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord should have reasonably foreseen the potential for damage due to the presence of mould throughout the property. The landlord acted unreasonably when formulating its compensation award by failing to consider its inability to effectively manage the repairs at the property, directly led to damage to the resident’s belongings.
The combination of failings detailed above, together with the delays to affect a resolution, lead to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £2,250 compensation to the resident for both the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home for the period the damp and mould was present, and the distress and inconvenience caused by living with damp and mould at the property. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been serious failings by the landlord over a significant period of time and where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide a service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The compensation is made up of:
1. £1,250 compensation based on the equivalent partial cost of rent (10%, as offered by the landlord). This amount is calculated from March 2023 (when the landlord could have reasonably taken action to address the issue) to April 2025 (when the repairs had been completed). The resident’s absence from the property from January 2024 to March 2024 has been deducted. This is made up of:
  1. March 2023 (4 weeks x (10% of 117.01) = £46.80).
  2. April 2023 to December 2023 (39 weeks x (10% of £125.20) = £488.28).
  3. April 2024 to 7 April 2025 (53 weeks x (10% of £134.84) = £714.44).
2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 2 working days.
2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. It will acknowledge complaint escalations within 2 working days.
4. It will issue its stage 2 response within 10 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
5. If the landlord is unable to meet a timescale set out within its policy the resident will be advised of the reasons why the timescale is likely to be exceeded and an alternative timescale will be agreed with them.
The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 18 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged his complaint 2 days later in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2024. This was 3 months later than the time scales set out in its complaints policy. While the response apologised for the delay, the resident had not been previously made aware of the reasons for the delay.
The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 30 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged his request on 1 October 2024. This was 20 working days later than the timescales allowed for under its complaints policy.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2024, 13 working days later. While this was outside of the timescales set out in its policy, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) states stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days.
While the response apologised for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint it did not offer the resident compensation for that delay. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation payments to be made for time and trouble, and also failure to respond to correspondence when it is “an aggravating factor in relation to a related complaint”.
In summary, the landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed by 3 months. When the resident escalated his complaint, there was a further 1-month delay in acknowledging his request. The landlord’s failure to adhere to the timescales in its policy was unreasonable. The landlord’s failure to notify the resident of the delays exacerbated the situation and caused the resident time and trouble in pursing his complaint. While the complaint responses apologised for the delays caused, the landlord failed to address the time and trouble caused to the resident in line with its own policy.
These failings lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology, from the Chief Executive, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £2,350 compensation, made up of:
  1. £2,250 for its failures in handling damp and mould.
  2. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Appoint a suitably qualified surveyor to conduct a post inspection of the property to assess whether the repairs have addressed the damp and mould effectively. The landlord must ensure the surveyor provides a full report to it, including photographs and a scope of any further works identified, within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of the report within 5 working days of receipt.
4. Following receipt of the inspection report, the landlord must ensure any works required are started within 28 days of the date it receives the report. The landlord must, within 9 weeks of the date of this determination, provide evidence that it has commenced the works or provide reasons and evidence as to why it has not/cannot start the work within these timescales, together with amended start times. If no works are identified, the landlord must provide the resident with meaningful and relevant advice as to how he can best manage the issue and provide us with a copy of the correspondence or telephone transcript in which that advice is given.
5. Assess the damage caused to the resident’s furnishings and belongings by the damp and mould. It should consider the evidence held by the resident and receipts previously provided and make him an offer of compensation. Alternatively, the landlord may assist the resident to submit an insurance claim through its liability insurer for the damaged items.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.