Somerset Council (202339598)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339598

Somerset Council

3 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in his home.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The number of bedrooms the house has is unknown. The resident has lived in the property since 2014, together with his wife and family. The resident’s son has complex needs including severe anxiety
3. In October 2022 the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of damp in his home. It subsequently raised an order to carry out remedial works. The resident declined the works stating that they would be too disruptive for his son. In December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the mould had worsened and was impacting his family’s health. He asked to be moved permanently. The landlord took steps to place the resident on its housing register.
4. In September 2023 the landlord inspected the property following a further report. Some remedial works were subsequently completed around this time. Other works were identified, but not carried out as the resident remained concerned about disruption affecting his son. In December 2023 the landlord met with the resident to try to progress matters. During the meeting, the resident explained what works could go ahead while his family were in situ, and what repairs could not given the likely impact on his son. Some further works were carried out in mid-2024.
5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters and sent a formal complaint by post. Within this, the resident said the landlord told him that the works to resolve the damp and mould were not viable due to his family’s complex needs. Therefore, in his opinion, the property was uninhabitable. He asked the landlord to move him and his family into another permanent suitable house. The landlord received the complaint on 14 July 2024 and sent an acknowledgement on 26 July 2024.
6. On 7 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
   1. it had attended on multiple occasions and raised remedial repairs to rectify the damp and mould issues. However, it was unable to complete the majority of works due to the resident’s concerns around the effect it would have on his son.
   2. its Housing Options Team had told it that only 1 5-bedroom house had become available in 2023. There were currently 87 households in need of similar housing. It said that it had informed the resident that finding suitable permanent accommodation would not be a quick solution to resolve the damp and mould.
   3. the resident needed to move into temporary accommodation to allow its contractor to complete the remainder of the works.
7. On 1 September 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He said he was unsure whether temporary accommodation would be suitable for his family’s needs.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 September 2024. It said:
   1. it acknowledged the resident’s concerns. It would be able to support the resident’s children getting to school while the family was in temporary accommodation.
   2. the resident would continue to be on its housing register’s gold band while in temporary accommodation. It explained that if suitable property became available while the family were in temporary accommodation, it would still request a direct match.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident told us that there has been damp and mould affecting the property since 2019. While this is noted, our investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of recent reports from October 2022 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s home.

10. When the resident reported damp and mould in October 2022, the landlord identified that there was rising damp in the property. It also identified works to resolve the issue. This was reasonable. However, the resident explained that the works would not be able go ahead while his son was present as he had complex needs and experienced heightened anxiety around visitors in the home. The resident also explained that his son would not be able to go into respite care while works were carried out.
11. During the following months the resident continued to raise concerns about the damp and mould in his home. He said that it was “horrendous”. He reiterated that his son could not leave the house due to his complex needs and that work could not be carried out while he was in the property. The resident asked to be permanently rehoused.
12. The landlord informed the resident that it would discuss a permanent move with its housing option team. It explained that rehousing him and his family would not be a quick solution to resolve the damp. The landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable. It managed his expectations that a permanent move could take some time to materialise and therefore would not resolve the issue in a timely manner.
13. It is acknowledged, given the circumstances, it was challenging for the landlord to progress the works. However, as the damp and mould went unresolved, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered what measures it could put in place to mitigate any further inconvenience or risk in the meantime. The resident raised concerns that the damp and mould was having a negative impact on his family’s health. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord considered whether the property would benefit from a dehumidifier. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
14. The resident gave the landlord permission to contact his son’s support worker on 12 December 2022. However, it was not until 11 January 2023 that the landlord called them. This was approximately a month after it received permission to do so. The reason for the delay is unclear. However, we have seen no evidence to suggest that it was unavoidable.
15. The landlord’s records show that it left a voicemail for the support worker, but it is unclear whether they returned its call. It is also unclear whether the landlord contacted the support worker in relation to the resident’s request for a permanent move, support with resolving the damp and mould or both. Nonetheless, that there is no evidence that made any further contact with them was a missed opportunity to discuss and potentially find alternative solutions to carry out the repairs while supporting the resident’s son.
16. What transpired over the following months is unclear. It is noted that the resident wished to be moved permanently, and a decision not to progress the repairs may have been made. However, given the shortage of alternative properties as stated by the landlord, this seems unlikely. The landlord should reasonably have been continuing to work with the resident to progress the repairs during this period. There is no evidence that it did so, and this was a failing. Our 2021 Damp and Mould Spotlight Report stated that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould cases, and that they should be proactive in their approach. As the landlord did not take action during this time to resolve the issues, the resident and his family continued to live with damp and mould in their home without timely resolutions being sought.
17. Following another property inspection in September 2023, the landlord carried out some remedial works. This included fitting vents within the property and clearing its gutters and downpipes. On 19 December 2023, it discussed the remaining outstanding works with the resident. The evidence suggests that it explained the specific works that were required alongside the timeframes it would take to complete each one.
18. The resident agreed that the landlord could carry out some of the remaining works that brought minimal disruption to his son. That the landlord discussed the individual repairs and the time it would take to complete was appropriate. This meant that the resident was fully informed about what each repair entailed and how it may affect his son. By taking this approach, the landlord was able to make some progress to resolve the damp and mould. Therefore, this approach was reasonable and appropriate. It is unclear whether the landlord discussed the scope of works with the resident in this manner earlier. However, given the specific concerns that were raised by the resident and that he agreed to some works going ahead in December 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have tried talking through the works in such a manner sooner.
19. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered what steps it could take to resolve the other works that were also required to fully resolve the issue. This was another missed opportunity to fully resolve the matter. It is noted that some works were progressed during early-mid 2024.
20. The evidence shows that in July 2024 the landlord identified that to complete the remaining works the family needed to be moved into temporary accommodation. The evidence suggests that this was because a permanent move had not been found and it was unable to carry out the works while the family was in situ due to the resident’s son’s complex needs. While the evidence suggests that the landlord could have considered a temporary move sooner, that it considered an alternative solution to fully and meaningfully resolve the damp and mould was reasonable.
21. In the resident’s escalated complaint, he raised concerns about the landlord’s proposal to move him and his family into temporary accommodation so it could resolve the damp and mould. The landlord visited the resident to discuss his concerns. This was appropriate.
22. It also reiterated its reassurances in its stage 2 response. For example, it said that the family would remain on the housing register’s gold band and that it would facilitate travel arrangements while they were in temporary accommodation. Its response demonstrated that it reasonably reassured the resident that it would take steps to minimise any additional disruption the temporary move may cause.
23. The evidence shows that after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response, it and the resident continued to work together to progress the repairs. The landlord and resident have told this Service that the family will be moved into temporary accommodation in August 2025 so the repairs can be completed.
24. Overall, it is noted that this was a challenging situation for the landlord and that it had attempted to progress the repairs at times. However, this investigation shows that on several occasions its actions were delayed, and it missed opportunities to consider alternative solutions and progress the repairs in a timely manner. There is also an absence of evidence demonstrating that temporary measures were considered to mitigate the risks of living with damp and mould – for example providing a dehumidifier between December 2022 and September 2023. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his home. We have made a series of orders to put matters right.
25. In July 2025, the resident has told this Service that he is concerned that the landlord’s proposed works will not resolve the damp and mould in property. He has told us that the landlord has not responded to his concerns. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss his concerns further.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his home.

Orders

27. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of damp and mould in his home.
    3. remind relevant staff of the importance of responding to reports of damp and mould promptly and proactively.
    4. provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

28. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his concerns that its proposed works will not resolve the damp and mould in his home.