Swindon Borough Council (202432723)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord identified damp and mould, as well as a potential leak, on 24 November 2023. The resident has informed the landlord of her families vulnerabilities including that her children have asthma and one has a heart condition

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord did not take any action for 9 months following a surveyor’s report that identified damp and mould. After a second survey, the landlord completed repairs within its timescales aside from a commitment to repair a ventilation unit.
8. The landlord responded to the complaint within its timescales.

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.

9. The landlord conducted a damp and mould survey on 24 November 2023. There was evidence of a leak, as well as damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the results of the survey or spoke with the resident about the damp and mould that had been identified at the property. According to its damp and mould policy, the landlord should have taken a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and taken action to deal with what was causing it. The landlord did not take any action in relation to the issue for 9 months. That was not appropriate, the landlord failed to follow its policy here.
10. The landlord completed a further survey on 20 August 2024, which identified the same issues. The landlord completed a damp and mould wash on 3 September 2024. This was within 14 days so the time taken was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy, which says remedial work should be completed within 28 days.
11. The August 2024 survey said the leak could be caused by a faulty vent in the roof. The landlord decided to replace this with a different type of vent. This work involved an inspection and repairs to the interior and exterior of the resident’s roof. We consider it reasonable for the landlord to have classed this as a larger repair, due to the complexity of the works. Its damp and mould policy says such works should be completed within 90 days. The work was completed on 11 November 2024, which means it took 83 days to complete. The time taken was therefore appropriate.
12. The landlord committed to conducting repairs to a ventilation heat recovery unit in its stage 1 response on 5 September 2025. An operative attended the next day and recommended that the unit should be serviced. The landlord conducted this service on 15 January 2025. This was 131 days from when the operative recommended the service. The landlord noted in an email on 12 March 2025 that this meant the unit had not been operating properly, which contributed to the damp and mould issues the resident was experiencing. The landlord far exceeded the 28 day timeframe in its damp and mould policy for routine repairs. It has acknowledged that this contributed to the damp and mould issues the resident has experienced. This was a failing of the landlord.
13. While there is no conclusive evidence of when the landlord redecorated the bathroom, the evidence suggests this took place in early December 2024. The resident has noted in an email that it was repainted the week before Christmas. Emails from the landlord suggest that some works took place on 4 December 2024. At most, given these timeframes, the bathroom was redecorated in 29 working days. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a timeframe for its repairs, but its website currently says non-urgent repairs will take no longer than 40 working days. We think it is reasonable to consider the landlord’s response time in this context. Therefore, we consider that the time taken to redecorate the bathroom was reasonable.
14. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £350 compensation. After the resident reported that mould had returned to the bathroom, the landlord increased this offer to £765. This was made up of £450 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its failure to communicate and the delay in repairs. It also appropriately paid the resident £315 for the cost of getting the bathroom redecorated, which it had approved.
15. In summary, the time taken to carry out the repairs following the survey on 24 November 2023 almost 14 months (from 24 November 2023 to 15 January 2025). The resident was caused likely distress and inconvenience by this and she had concerns for the health of her children. The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of the children and that damp and mould could aggravate them. There is no evidence that it took this into consideration when responding to the damp and mould or conducting the repairs. The landlord also did not conduct repairs to the ventilation unit in line with its policy. We consider, had the landlord acted in line with its damp and mould and repair policies, these repairs should have completed approximately by the end of February 2024. There was therefore a delay of over 10 months. The landlord did acknowledge some of its failings, however because of the impact on the resident and the landlord’s failure to follow its repair commitment in its stage 1 response, we consider further compensation of £300 would be appropriate. This has been calculated at £75 a month minus the £450 previously offered. This sum reflects the fact that, due to the vulnerabilities of the household, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other households in the same position without their vulnerabilities.
16. The resident has complained that damp and mould has affected her children’s health. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. She could seek independent advice regarding this or consider a claim through the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord.

17. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. We have not seen whether the landlord acknowledged either of the resident’s complaints. However, bar a 1 day delay to its stage 1 response, the landlord provided its responses to the resident within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management explains that failures can be avoided when landlords store and maintain information appropriately.
19. In this case, there are flaws in the landlord’s record keeping. The repair records the landlord has provided us with are missing entries, such as the December 2024 bathroom redecoration and the roof works that took place in November 2024. There is also no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaints. The resident mentioned in her initial complaint that she had been calling the landlord to see what action it was going to take. We have not been provided evidence of this, but the landlord has not disputed the resident’s position. The landlord’s record keeping could have had an impact on this case. When it comes to the calls in particular, if they had been recorded more appropriately the landlord may have initially identified it should have been taking action on the surveyor report of November 2023.

Communication

20. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not communicate well with the resident. We have also noted that it provided the resident with 2 different stage 2 responses. The responses had similar content but one did not have as much detail as the other, including the actual compensation amount. From looking at the responses, one appears to be sent via email and the other on a portal. The response with less detail does not reference the other response. This confused and frustrated the resident and she only discovered her full stage 2 response in March 2025. While this approach is not a failing under the Code, the landlord should be mindful of the confusion that sending two separate responses could cause residents.