Southend on Sea City Council (202506439)

Background

1. The property is a 4-bedroom house with a separate toilet and bathroom. The landlord has it recorded that the resident has asthma.
2. The property is managed by a housing association on behalf of the landlord, a council. This includes providing the responsive repairs service and responding to complaints. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of these issues in accordance with the housing association’s relevant policies and committed timescales, set out on its website.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

8. There were unreasonable delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs. It offered redress but this was insufficient considering the failures and the impact on the resident.
9. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and took reasonable action to acknowledge minor failures.

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.

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes walls, doors and drains. The landlord is also responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
11. The resident reported cracks in the property on 15 October 2024. The landlord raised a job and recorded this as completed on 29 October 2024. We have seen no record of the outcome of this visit or what, if any, works were completed. The lack of records means we have not been able to fully assess the landlord’s handling of this issue.
12. From the landlord’s records it is not clear when the resident first reported damp and mould. We have seen an internal email that said damp and mould inspections were completed in December 2023 and January 2025, suggesting the resident had reported this issue around these times.
13. We have not seen records of these inspections. It is not clear if this is because there are no records, or because they were not provided to us. Regardless, this is a failure. The lack of records means we have not been able to fully assess the landlord’s handling of this issue. However, it is clear that damp and mould concerns were raised with the landlord on multiple occasions, from at least December 2023.
14. The resident said she reported damaged plaster and mould on the toilet ceiling on 28 January 2025. The landlord raised a job to repair the ceiling. It arranged 3 appointments for this on 6, 13 and 18 February 2025, but none went ahead. The appointments on 6 and 18 February 2025 did not go ahead as the operatives were unexpectedly unavailable. While frustrating for the resident, this can happen and is not a failure of the landlord. The appointment on 13 February 2025 did not go ahead as it was allocated to the wrong operative. This was an avoidable administrative error by the landlord.
15. The landlord attended on 25 February 2025, 29 days after the resident reported the ceiling repair. This was slightly over the 28 day committed timescale for routine repairs set out on its website. The landlord noted there was significant damage in the toilet, which it suspected was caused by a roof leak. It said there was damp in other areas and significant cracks in the hallway ceiling on what it believed was a load bearing beam. It suggested this could be dangerous if the cracks got worse. It recommended a supervisor or surveyor inspection.
16. Prior to this visit, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 7 February 2025. It is not clear from the records provided what prompted this inspection. It noted the DPC was not in good working condition and there appeared to be extensive rising damp. It also recommended a surveyor needed to visit.
17. Considering this happened 2 weeks before the visit for the ceiling, it is not clear why the landlord went ahead with the operative visit on 25 February 2025, as it had already identified a more senior member of staff was needed. The visit on 25 February 2025 was unnecessary and meant the resident spent time and effort giving access for an appointment that was of no benefit to resolving the issues.
18. Considering the concerns identified at both visits in February 2025, and that the resident had told the landlord the damp and mould was affecting her health, it should have progressed the follow up visit urgently. However, a supervisor did not inspect the property until 28 March 2025, more than 4 weeks after the second visit and 7 weeks after the first. This was too long considering the issues identified and the impact on the resident.
19. The supervisor identified multiple repairs needed to address damp and mould in a number of a rooms, damaged walls and plaster, a roof leak and cracks in walls and ceilings. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord raised jobs for these repairs until nearly 2 months later on 12 May 2025. While multiple jobs were raised on this date, many of them were subsequently cancelled and there is no evidence any works were carried out.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 response said its surveyor would attend on 3 June 2025 to put together a schedule of works. This was the fourth inspection in 5 months, but no works had actually been completed. This was at least 18 months after the resident had first raised concerns about damp and mould and more than 7 months after she had first raised concerns about cracks. This was an unreasonable delay and meant the resident was left living in the property for an extended period with damp, mould and cracks. This is particularly concerning as the landlord was aware the damp and mould was affecting her health.
21. When dealing with damp and mould, it is vital that landlords seek to resolve the underlying cause as well as treat the problem. In this case, the landlord considered the possible causes as part of its inspections in February and March 2025 and recommended actions to resolve this. This was positive, but it did not complete these in a timely manner.
22. The landlord also raised a job on 17 February 2025 to complete a mould wash. This was appropriate to remove the mould while it took action to address the underlying cause. The landlord raised this as a routine repair. The landlord’s website gives an example of an emergency repair as damp and mould that is classed as a hazard. As the landlord was aware the resident has asthma and she had told it this was affecting her health, the landlord should have raised this job as an emergency.
23. The landlord completed the mould wash on 10 March 2025, 22 days after the job was raised. While this was in line with the 28 day committed response time for routine repairs, this was significantly over the 24 hour committed response time for emergency repairs. The landlord should have treated this job with more urgency and taken steps to remove the mould as a priority. Its failure to do so shows it had not properly considered the impact of the damp and mould on the resident. This was disappointing for her.
24. The resident told the landlord she felt the property was unsafe. There is no evidence the landlord considered this as part of its inspections in February, March or June 2025, or responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a failure and left the resident feeling the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
25. We have seen no evidence that the resident reported the broken glass above a bedroom door as a repair. She first raised this as part of her complaint on 31 January 2025. The landlord is not responsible for repairs that it is not aware of. As part of its investigation of the complaint, the landlord identified this issue had not been previously reported. In its stage 1 response of 25 February 2025 it committed to raise a job for this, which it did promptly the following day. It raised this job as an emergency repair. This was appropriate as the resident had reported that the broken glass had left glass fragments. The landlord’s website says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord noted it attended on 27 February 2025, within the 24 hour target timescale.
26. The resident reported an external drain was overflowing on 18 October 2024. The landlord’s website gives an example of an emergency repair as a blocked drain if backing up in the property or overflowing. As this drain was overflowing externally, it was reasonable that the landlord did not treat it as an emergency repair. However, it was appropriate that it treated it with urgency and raised a job with a 3 day target for completion. This was reasonable.
27. The landlord noted it attended on 21 October 2024, in line with the 3 day target timescale. The records provided do not include notes confirming the outcome of the visit, so we do not know what, if any, works were completed. The resident has said the landlord did not resolve this issue until around the end of November 2024. This is supported by the landlord’s repair records which show 2 further jobs were raised for the overflowing drain on 23 October and 20 November 2024. This delay meant there was water overflowing in the garden for around 5 weeks.
28. The reason for this delay is unclear. This means we cannot assess whether it was a result of any failure by the landlord. We have seen no evidence the landlord updated the resident on the reasons for the delay or told her when it expected to be able to resolve the issue. This meant she was left not knowing what was happening or when it would be resolved.
29. The resident was temporarily moved out of the property in August 2025 for works to be completed. She said the landlord has given her some information about the works but has not confirmed anything in writing, despite her asking for this. She said she was told in response to her request for a copy of an inspection report from July 2025 that this request needed to come from us. This is incorrect.
30. The landlord should tell the resident the outcome of any inspections and confirm what works it will be completing. It is good practice to do this in writing so the resident knows what is happening and avoids any confusion or misunderstanding. The landlord has not done that in this case and has given incorrect information about why it has not done so. This was unfair.
31. We order the landlord to confirm in writing the outcome of its inspection in July 2025. This should include the suspected cause of the damp and mould and cracks, and what works it is doing, with timescales for completion. The landlord should also confirm how regularly it will update the resident on the progress of the works.
32. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the repairs, apologised and paid £500 compensation. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. However, considering the extent of the delays, the impact on the resident and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the redress offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation (inclusive of the £500 already offered). This is reflective of failures that had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
33. The resident has asked for compensation for the impact on her health. We cannot determine there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. This must be considered by a public liability insurance claim. We have considered the general distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures, and ordered compensation for this.

34. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
35. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 11 February 2025, 7 working days after the complaint was made. This was slightly over the committed timescale set out in its policy. The landlord apologised for this in the acknowledgement. As the delay was minor, the apology was sufficient to address this failure. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 11 working days, 1 day over the 10 working day response time set out in its policy.
36. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 29 April 2025, 5 working days after the complaint was escalated. It sent the stage 2 response in 20 working days. These were both in line with the committed timescales set out in its policy.
37. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in it sending the stage 1 response. As this was a minor delay of 1 day and the rest of the complaint handling was reasonable and in line with its policy commitments, this was not a failure. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

38. The landlord should ensure it correctly allocates jobs to the right contractor/operative so scheduled visits go ahead as planned.
39. The landlord should consider the resident’s individual circumstances, including health conditions, when progressing matters and raising repair jobs. If appropriate, it should prioritise inspections or works based on this.
40. When dealing with damp and mould, it is essential that the landlord treats the problem and addresses the underlying cause.
41. The landlord should complete repairs in line with its committed timescales. If it is unable to do so, it should tell the resident and provide updates during the period of delay.
42. The landlord should respond to complaints in line with the timescales set out in its policy, as it did in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. Missing records in this case have impacted our ability to fully assess the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
44. The landlord should ensure it records the outcome of repair visits and inspections and provides this information to us as part of investigations.

Communication

45. If a resident raises concerns about the safety of their property, the landlord should investigate this, document its findings and feedback to the resident.
46. The landlord should tell residents the outcome of inspections in writing, including any works it will complete with a timescale for these to be done. It should not tell residents it can only share this information at our request, as this is incorrect.