Stoke on Trent City Council (202409946)

Decision
Case ID	202409946
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Stoke on Trent City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	8 April 2026

Background

The resident lived in the house since March 2015. The landlord carried out an inspection in February 2023 and said it needed to carry out major works to address rising damp affecting the ground floor. In March 2024 the resident and her child moved permanently to a different property with another landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to damp and mould

The landlord failed to act promptly, appropriately assess hazards, keep adequate records or communicate clearly and regularly.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s initial complaint, provide clear updates when its complaint responses were delayed or adequately address the issues raised by the resident.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 May 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould and its handling of the complaint. The compensation amount is made up as follows: £600 for its response to reports of damp and mould. £150 for its handling of the complaint.	No later than 06 May 2026
	Communication order The landlord must contact the resident to confirm its position regarding the rehousing allowance. Its correspondence must: refer to the policies and procedures in place at the time the resident’s tenancy ended explain whether the resident is/was eligible to receive the allowance confirm if it has already paid an allowance to the resident, and if so, the amount paid, and when and how it was paid clearly explain the next steps the resident should take if she has not already received an allowance and wishes to submit a claim	No later than 06 May 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord review its record keeping policies, procedures and practices.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 February 2024	The resident contacted the landlord and said: it had failed to resolve problems with damp and mould throughout the tenancy the property was ‘riddled with’ damp and mould she had recently been offered a permanent move because of the condition of the property and would like the landlord to pay her compensation.
On or around 21 February 2024	The resident said she wanted to make a complaint or application for compensation. She reiterated the points she raised on 9 February 2024 and said: the situation had affected her mental health she wasted money trying to make the property a home she was disappointed the landlord had not apologised.
8 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It defined the complaint as about ‘previous repairs failing and/or not being attended’. It said it did not uphold the complaint because it had no records of any previous complaints and only a few repairs had been reported. The resident escalated the complaint the same day. She said that moving home due to disrepair should be sufficient evidence about the condition of the property.
10 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it upheld the complaint and apologised for failing to follow up a ‘no access’ appointment on 20 February 2020 following reports of water under the living room floor it had received no reports of damp and mould since it repaired the guttering on 29 September 2021 it received a disrepair claim from the resident’s solicitor in June 2022, its surveyor attended to carry out an inspection but did not gain access to the property and the claim was subsequently withdrawn.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said: she was unhappy the landlord had not offered any compensation despite her needing to move because the property was in disrepair the landlord had inspected the property, taken photographs and used a damp probe but did not carry out repairs or provide her with any updates ongoing issues with damp and mould throughout the tenancy affected her mental health and impacted her financially she was disappointed the landlord had not apologised for the conditions she lived in.

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 did not consider

The resident said the landlord failed to resolve problems with damp since the start of the tenancy. Our Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is evidence the landlord undertook repairs to address damp in 2015. The landlord confirmed the resident reported damp in 2020 and initiated a disrepair claim in 2022. However, we have not seen evidence the resident raised a formal complaint until February 2024. In the interests of fairness our investigation has focused on relevant events from February 2023 onwards.
The resident told us that the situation affected her mental health. We cannot decide whether a landlord’s actions (or lack of action) have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to seek independent advice regarding this or consider a personal injury claim. Whilst we cannot determine an impact on health, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by any landlord failings.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The Homes (Fitness of Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires the landlord to ensure the property is free from hazards and fit for habitation throughout the tenancy. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential hazards. The HHSRS identifies damp and mould as a potential hazard. Government guidance says children are more vulnerable to the health impacts of damp and mould.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy (2023) says it has a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. It will act as quickly and efficiently as possible to alleviate and minimise the impact of damp and mould.
On 27 February 2023 the landlord said it needed to move the resident into temporary accommodation (a decant) whilst it carried out major repairs to address rising damp. It expected the repairs to take 4 to 6 weeks to complete. It is unreasonable that the landlord’s records do not include a detailed survey report including information such as the cause of the issue, moisture meter readings, the extent of any damage or the timescale it should complete repairs within. However, it has provided a list of the repairs it needed to do including repointing brickwork, damp proofing injections, replastering, renewing skirting, stain blocking and decorating.
It is unreasonable that the landlord did not visit the resident to discuss its offer of temporary accommodation until 23 May 2023, 58 working days after it identified that it needed to carry out major repairs. During the visit, the resident said she wanted to move permanently to a different property. Records of the landlord’s internal communications say that its policy ‘at the time’ allowed this. We asked the landlord to provide its relevant policies and procedures. It did not provide a decant policy applicable to the time and circumstances of the resident’s complaint. It provided its decant procedure dated December 2023 however, despite our specific request the landlord did not provide a copy of the decant procedure it had in place prior to December 2023. This is a record keeping failure and has impacted our ability to assess whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord liaised with its housing solutions team to progress the resident’s application for a permanent move. This was reasonable. However, it is unreasonable that there is no evidence the landlord clearly explained to the resident what it would do to support her housing application or how it would address damp and mould in the meantime.
There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident for a further 5 months. Its notes of a telephone conversation on 25 October 2023 say the resident “preferred to wait” for repairs to be carried out. Given the repairs were identified eight months earlier, the landlord should have assessed whether it was appropriate to continue delaying them.
The landlord visited the resident in January 2024, after the resident received an offer of permanent rehousing via the housing register. Its internal records note that both it and the resident agreed to wait until she moved out of the property before carrying out any repairs. It is unreasonable that landlord did not carry out an inspection or risk assessment during the visit. Such information would have provided an accurate audit trail of the decisions it made. That it did not maintain such records is a record keeping failure
We have not seen any evidence that between 27 February 2023 and 9 February 2024 the resident made further reports of damp and mould, requested updates, or raised concerns about the impact on the household. However, we have also not seen any evidence the landlord considered its statutory obligation to ensure the property was fit for habitation. Nor have we seen any evidence that it adhered to its damp and mould policy by acting “as quickly and efficiently as possible to alleviate and minimise the impact of damp and mould”. Whilst the resident expressed a desire to avoid the disruption of moving into temporary accommodation, the landlord should have:
1. assessed the condition of the property and what level of risk its condition posed to the resident’s household
2. considered if it could complete any repairs whilst the resident remained in the property
3. considered carrying out treatments to minimise the impact of damp and mould in the short term
4. regularly monitored the condition of the property and reviewed its position.
The landlord’s decant procedure at the time the resident’s tenancy ended says that the resident may claim a rehousing allowance after temporarily or permanently moving home due to major repair works. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm whether the resident claimed the rehousing allowance, nor whether the landlord informed her about this. The procedure does not include a time limit within which the resident must submit a rehousing allowance claim. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident and clarify its position concerning the rehousing allowance.
The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould amounts to maladministration because it failed to:
1. assess whether the damp constituted a hazard and/or made the property unfit for habitation
2. carry out any treatments or repairs to minimise the impact of damp and mould while the resident was waiting for an offer of permanent rehousing
3. communicate clearly and regularly with the resident
4. maintain detailed records of its actions and decisions.
The resident said she needed to redecorate the property frequently and did not have family or friends to visit because she was embarrassed about its condition. She was particularly disappointed that the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the condition of the property. The landlord did not adhere to our dispute resolution principles to ‘be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes’ because it did not identify failings which had an adverse impact on the resident. Therefore, in accordance with our compensation guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code and says it:
1. defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made”
2. will consider all information and evidence provided carefully
3. will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days
4. aims to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days
5. will agree with the resident suitable extensions to its response timescales and keep the resident updated.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not satisfactory because:
1. it did not appropriately identify and respond to the resident’s contact on 9 February 2024 as a complaint
2. there is no evidence it acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days at either stage
3. it issued its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses outside of the timescales set out in its policy
4. whilst it contacted the resident to apologise for delays at both stages, it did not do this in a timely manner, and it did not clearly tell the resident when it expected to provide its responses
5. the complaint responses lacked empathy and did not adequately address the issues raised by the resident.
This amounts to maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance which says this is an appropriate amount where there have been complaint handling failures which adversely impacted the resident and the landlord has not recognised this or attempted to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should maintain accurate and complete repair and communication records, ensuring it clearly records inspections, survey findings and completed actions.

Communication

The landlord should ensure it communicates clearly with residents regarding actions taken to resolve reports of damp and mould. It should provide timely and regular updates including written action plans after inspections, so expectations and next steps are transparent.