Slough Borough Council (202442642)

Background

1. The resident experienced damp and mould in the property from February 2022 until November 2023. During this period, the landlord completed extensive works. Both parties informally agreed on a sum of compensation to address the impact caused to her during this period. In December 2024 she complained the damp and mould had returned. The landlord completed some works throughout 2025. However, the resident complained that these measures failed to fully resolve the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was maladministration in:
   1. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to follow its damp and mould process in response to the resident’s reports. It failed to complete works raised to address the issue in line with its repairs timescales. It inappropriately abandoned several outstanding works which it committed to in its final response with no documented justification or explanations offered to the resident.
6. The landlord delayed in issuing stage 1 and 2 complaint responses by 20 and 86 working days respectively. It also failed to acknowledge either delay during the complaints process.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. Our Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which have not been addressed at both stages of a landlord’s complaints process. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould from February 2022 onwards. However, she did not raise a formal complaint until 9 January 2025. We note that in early January 2024 both parties agreed on compensation to address issues with damp and mould from February 2022 until November 2023. However, agreement was not reached through the formal complaints process.
8. We also note that the resident considers the landlord had successfully resolved the issues from November 2023 until December 2024. She was explicit in her complaint of 9 January 2025 that it was prompted by the return of damp and mould in December 2024. She then brought her complaint to us on 23 January 2025. Our Scheme states that we may not investigate matters referred to more than 12 months after the exhaustion of the complaints process.
9. Therefore, even if we were to accept that the informal agreement reached in early January 2025 qualified as the exhaustion of the complaints process, the resident still referred her complaint to us more than 12 months after this stage. Therefore, as per our Scheme, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould from February 2022 until November 2023 is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.
10. This investigation has only considered the landlord’s handling of damp and mould from December 2024, when the resident reported its return, until its stage 2 response on 17 July 2025. We have also considered events which followed this insofar as they relate to commitments made in the final response.
11. We can see the resident has repeatedly complained about the impact she considers damp and mould is having on her and her family’s physical health, and that she wants compensation for this impact. She also provided a letter from her GP which emphasised this. While we have considered any distress the landlord’s actions may have caused the resident, this investigation will not consider any potential impact of damp and mould on the resident or her children’s health.
12. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this part of the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

What we have investigated

13. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The resident’s tenancy agreement explains the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. Information on its website explains this includes issues related to: walls, flooring, window frames, and external doors.
14. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould explains we expect a “zero tolerance” approach to damp and mould. This means we expect landlords to act promptly on any reports of damp and mould and raise works to address the root cause of the issue.
15. The landlord’s damp and mould process sets out it will follow the following procedure following a report:
    1. Complete a risk assessment.
    2. Complete a survey within 24 hours for any properties occupied by residents with respiratory issues.
    3. Provide a written summary of the survey findings to the resident within 3 working days.
    4. Raise the survey recommendations.
16. The resident first reported that damp and mould had returned to the property in December 2024. There is no record of this report, so we are unable to determine the exact date she did so. There is also no record of any risk assessment by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow its damp and mould process in response to this report.
17. We can see the landlord inspected the property on 18 December 2024. It identified damp and mould in the back bedroom, bathroom, and balcony area. It recommended a further visit to determine a scope of works. It failed to raise this recommendation, write to the resident with the findings, or raise a mould wash. This was not in line with its process.
18. The lack of action then prompted the resident to complain on 9 January 2025. In the complaint she advised that her daughter had recurrent chest infections and that she considered mould was to blame. There is no indication the landlord completed a risk assessment in response to this or considered expediting the outstanding inspection as per its process.
19. It scheduled a further inspection for 3 February 2025 and advised the resident accordingly. However,there is no evidence to justify its failure to schedule this sooner as per the inspection recommendations, especially given the resident reported the kind of respiratory conditions its process defines as an “immediate risk”.
20. On 31 January 2025 the landlord advised the resident it would install a thermal insulation covering on the external bedroom wall on 6 February 2025. However, repair records show it did so on 20 February 2025. It raised these works on 21 January 2025, and therefore it exceeded its routine repair timescales by 2 working days in completing them. There is also no indication it updated the resident about the shifted timescales, which was likely frustrating for her.
21. The landlord also failed to keep a record of the planned 3 February 2025 inspection. It appears this inspection did go ahead, since it summarised the following recommendations as apparently made by the surveyor in its stage 1 response.
    1. Bedroom works:
       1. “Strip existing wallpaper from the rear and window walls.
       2. Treat all affected areas with a full damp-proofing process and apply anti-mould paint.
       3. Install Sempatap insulating wallpaper to both walls.
       4. Attempt to match existing wallpaper; if not possible, residents will have the choice of a contrasting or new pattern.
       5. Replace the existing window and door.”
    2. Ventilation works:
       1. “Install a ventilation unit in the cupboard vertically with necessary electrics.
       2. Fit a false ceiling in the hallway to allow proper ventilation throughout all rooms.
       3. Source air inlet from the outside bathroom wall.
       4. Complete all vent work, ensuring accessibility with white access panels for future maintenance.”
22. Given there is no record of the survey, we are unable to determine whether the landlord appropriately raised all the works recommended within it. This is poor and not in keeping with its process.
23. On 29 April 2025 the landlord stripped the wallpaper, applied anti-mould paint, and installed insulative wallpaper on both walls. Given it explained these were recommended by the survey on 3 February 2025, these works exceeded its routine timescales by 40 working days. It installed the new wallpaper on 15 May 2025, 51 working days past its timescales. However, we accept that this reasonably took longer than expected since it had to order bespoke wallpaper as per the resident’s request.
24. There is no evidence the landlord replaced the bedroom window or door as per its stage 1 commitment. There is also no documented justification for the abandonment of these works, or of any related update to the resident. This was poor and not in keeping with its repairs policy.
25. On 27 May 2025 the resident asked for an update on outstanding works and explained she still had no access to the back bedroom due to ongoing damp and mould. The landlord failed to acknowledge this email at the time or in its July 2025 final response. In this response it explained only that all bedroom works were complete and attached photos intended to illustrate this. However, the resident had reported persisting damp and mould despite the works so far attempted, and the landlord failed to raise a further inspection to address this as per its process.
26. The landlord also failed to complete any of the ventilation works outlined in either complaint response, despite specifically committing to installing a HRV unit by 23 July 2025 in its final response. This was not in keeping with its process, repairs policy, or with the “zero tolerance” approach recommended in our Spotlight report. We note the landlord recently advised us it would install the HRV unit by 30 April 2026.
27. Following its final response the landlord took no further action until 23 December 2025 when it raised a new inspection in response to the resident’s 17 December 2025 report of ongoing damp and mould. We can see it inspected the property on 5 January 2026 and completed the 2 repairs recommended by the surveyor between late January and early February 2026. However, this does not account for why it abandoned the ventilation works or window and door replacement it committed to at stages 1 and 2.
28. Ultimately , the landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould as per its process or repairs policy. Specifically, it:
    1. Failed to complete risk assessments or prioritise its surveys according to any identified risk as per its damp and mould process.
    2. Failed to complete works raised within its routine repairs timescales.
    3. Inappropriately abandoned several related works it raised with no documented justification or explanation offered to the resident.
29. While the landlord acknowledged some delays at stage 1, its final response did not acknowledge any service failure. It also has not offered any redress for these omissions at any stage. We consider these omissions cumulatively caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
30. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay the resident compensation to put things right. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have caused residents adverse, but not permanent, impacts.
31. In calculating the correct sum of compensation, we have considered how the resident’s distress was likely made more severe given her vulnerabilities. We have considered the repeated inconvenience she incurred in chasing repairs and the landlord’s poor communication. However, we have balanced this against the positive actions the landlord took in completing most of the bedroom repairs in April and May 2025.
32. With all this in mind we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation at the mid-upper end of our scale. We have ordered it to raise another damp and mould inspection to address the resident’s ongoing concerns, and to set out an action plan to address any issues it identifies.
33. We note the resident asked the landlord in March 2025 to reimburse her for possessions she said had been damaged by the mould. The landlord did not acknowledge this at any stage. Therefore, we have ordered it to consider the resident’s request as per its compensation guidance and provide its decision to her in writing.
34. While we recognise the resident has asked us to order the landlord to expedite her move to a new property, this is not an outcome we can provide. However, we have recommended the landlord updates her on the progress of this move.

35. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20. When it cannot meet these timescales, it will write to residents and provide updated timescales. This aligns with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code.
36. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its timescales on 13 January 2025. However, it was 20 working days late in issuing its response. It also failed to inform the resident its response would be delayed as per its policy. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation within its timescales on the same day. However, it was then 66 working days late in issuing its final response. It also failed to update the resident about the delay as per its policy. We consider these delays likely caused the resident some minor distress.
37. The landlord has not acknowledged either delay during the complaints process. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay the resident compensation to put this right. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are appropriate to put right failures which have caused short term or minor impacts. Given the total cumulative delay of 86 working days was quite substantial, and the landlord has not acknowledged this, we have ordered it to pay £100 as redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. For example, it failed to record the resident’s first report in December 2024 or the February 2025 survey. This then undermined our confidence in the appropriateness of the schedule of works it committed to at stage 1, given we could not see the professional recommendations on which they were based. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of keeping clear audit trails for repairs, and especially those involving residents reporting potential hazards.

Communication

39. The landlord’s communication was poor. For example, it failed to address the resident’s reports of ongoing issues with damp and mould on 27 May 2025. It also failed to offer proactive updates about the progress of repairs. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of communicating with residents proactively, and on how it might have better mitigated the ongoing impact of the substantive issue by doing so.