Thurrock Council (202404967)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202404967 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Thurrock Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
14 January 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 1-bed flat with her 2 children. She has reported reoccurring damp and mould since moving into the property in 2015. The landlord has carried out several repairs to address the issue. The resident has complained that the most recent works proposed by the landlord will not resolve the issue. She states the issue is caused by the property being overcrowded and asked the landlord to move her to a larger property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- 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
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The landlord made reasonable attempts to carry out works to address the damp and mould. As the resident declined access for the works, the landlord’s options for resolving the issue were limited
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
- The landlord failed to identify and action the resident’s request for it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This delayed its handling of the complaint and her access to the Ombudsman.
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 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by failings in its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 11 February 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should carry out an updated survey to assess the conditions in the property and whether the condensation, damp, and mould make it uninhabitable. If it is not habitable, it should consider whether its policy allows it to make a direct offer or managed move. |
|
If the resident decides she wants the proposed works to progress, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the effectiveness of the works once completed to ensure that the work has been successful in reducing the damp and mould. It should continue to monitor the property condition and complete a further survey if the resident reports that the issues have not been resolved. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
14 November 2023 |
The resident complained that she continued to experience damp and mould in the property. |
|
30 November 2023 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
It found there had been no service failure and did not uphold the complaint. |
|
1 December 2023 |
The resident asked the landlord to her complaint to stage 2. She said its stage 1 response had not addressed some of her issues. The landlord did not raise a stage 2 complaint. |
|
12 November 2024 |
The resident asked the landlord to raise a new complaint. She said she continued to experience damp and mould. |
|
14 November 2024 |
The landlord escalated the resident’s previous complaint to stage 2. The resident said she remained dissatisfied because:
|
|
17 December 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
It did not uphold the complaint as the resident had not provided access for the required work. |
|
7 February 2025 |
The landlord issued a follow-up response which states its position remained unchanged. It stated that to address the damp and mould it needed access to the property. It acknowledged that the property was overcrowded and confirmed that her priority banding for rehousing was correct. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she continued to experience damp and mould. She said she wanted the landlord to rehouse her as the issue was caused by overcrowding. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- We have previously investigated the landlord’s handling of damp and mould between December 2021 and March 2022 in a report dated 19 December 2022. As we have already assessed the landlord’s actions during this period, we will not assess them again in this report. This report will consider events from December 2022 onwards.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 29 December 2022 to arrange access for works to address the damp and mould. The resident expressed concerns about the scope of the works. Due to the length of time since its previous inspection, the landlord agreed to carry out another inspection. This was reasonable.
- The inspection confirmed that the original scope of works remained appropriate. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange access to carry out the works. However, she declined them as she did not believe they would resolve the issues. The landlord reiterated that the works were required to resolve the damp and mould and encouraged the resident to provide access. This was appropriate.
- In March 2023 the resident agreed for the works to go ahead. The landlord’s contractor attended in May 2023 to complete mould treatment and to install a vent airbrick and cover. However, the resident declined the works.
- The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain the structure of the property, including internal walls. The resident is responsible for reporting repair issues and allowing access for the landlord to complete the required repairs.
- The resident reported damp and mould again in November 2023. The landlord carried out an inspection 5 days after the resident’s report. This was prompt and appropriate. It raised works to treat the mould and to install thermal lining paper and anti-condensation paint to the walls.
- The landlord attended to carry out the works in January 2024 but was unable to complete them as the resident’s furniture had not been removed. The landlord’s repairs policy states the resident is responsible for moving furniture to allow it to complete repairs. It states that if furniture needs to be moved to undertake a repair, the landlord cannot be held responsible for any damage.
- The landlord said it would move the furniture for her if she was willing to sign a disclaimer for this. This was a reasonable solution and in line with its policy. However, because of damage that had previously been caused by the landlord’s contractors, the resident declined to sign the disclaimer. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns. However, requiring a signed disclaimer is common practice and it was reasonable of the landlord to request this before moving the items.
- Along with her reports of damage caused by contractors, the resident has reported damage to her belongings from the damp and mould. The landlord provided advice on how to make a claim on its insurance. It has asked her to provide a list of affected items. This was reasonable.
- The resident raised concerns that there would be nowhere for her family to sleep if her furniture was removed. The landlord offered to provide temporary accommodation while it completed the works. However, the resident declined as she said moving with 2 children would be an inconvenience. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the disruption this would cause, particularly for her young children. However, it was appropriate that the landlord offered this solution.
- In February 2024 the landlord put the resident’s furniture in storage and carried out the works. The resident chose to remain in the property while the works were completed.
- The repairs did not resolve the damp and mould and the resident reported it had returned in April 2024. The landlord carried out a further survey in May 2024. The resident states the surveyor told her that no repairs would resolve the issue as it was caused by the overcrowding. Her account is supported by internal communications which asked that her rehousing application be prioritised as the damp and mould would not be resolved due to the overcrowding.
- It is therefore understandable that the resident has expressed concern that the repairs proposed would not resolve the damp and mould. It is also understandable that she would be reluctant to inconvenience her family with a temporary move if she did not believe that the repairs would significantly improve the issue.
- The landlord has acknowledged that the property is overcrowded and that this is exacerbating the damp and mould. It has awarded her additional priority to bid for rehousing to a larger property.
- When a resident applies for rehousing by a local authority on the grounds of reasonable preference (eg because they are homeless, overcrowded, or need to move on medical grounds) they must apply via the allocations scheme also called the social housing register. Complaints about the handling of such applications including the level of priority applied are the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, not this Service. We have not therefore considered this issue in any detail. However, that the landlord considered the resident’s overcrowding and referred her to its rehousing team was appropriate.
- We acknowledge that the resident has aksed the landlord to move her to a larger property and that this would be the ideal outcome in the long term. However, the landlord must adhere to the relevant legislation and processes in handling rehousing applications. Given the demand for social housing, it may take some time for her to be moved. In the meantime, the landlord is obliged by the terms of the tenancy agreement to address the condition of the property.
- Overall, the landlord has made reasonable attempts to carry out works to address the damp and mould in the property. The overcrowding in the property may impact the effectiveness of the works in resolving the damp and mould. However, the landlord is obliged to carry out repairs to maintain the condition of the property. If it completes the works and they prove to be ineffective, it would the reasonable for it to then reassess its position. As the resident has declined access for the proposed works, the landlord’s options for resolving the issue were limited. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- It took the landlord 12 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. While this slightly exceeded the 10-working day timeframe outlined in the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the delay was minor and did not cause any detriment.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response contained proportionate detail and addressed the issues raised by the resident.
- The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in December 2023. The landlord failed to do so. This was a failing to adhere to its policy and the Code and delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman.
- When the resident asked the landlord to raise a new stage 1 complaint in November 2024 it said it would instead escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was appropriate. However, it did not identify its failure to action her previous stage 2 escalation. It therefore failed to apologise or provide redress.
- It took the landlord 25 working days to provide a stage 2 response. This exceeds the 20-working day timeframe in its policy and the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its response or offer any redress. This was unreasonable.
- The stage 2 complaint response was reasonably detailed and addressed all the issues raised by the resident. The landlord reiterated its position in a further response in February 2025 following further communication from the resident. This response was also clear and appropriate.
- Overall, the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint when she asked it to do so, this delayed her access to this Service. It also failed to acknowledge its delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint and provide redress for this. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
Communication
- We have not identified any problems with the landlord’s communication.