Thurrock Council (202446786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446786

Thurrock Council

29 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. His tenancy began on 20 September 2021. The property is a ground floor bedsit. The landlord has advised that the resident has no vulnerability marker to indicate eligibility for an enhanced repair service. In his complaint, the resident told the landlord he had asthma and scoliosis.
According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported mould in his property from June 2022, due to issues with access, the landlord did not complete treatment works to the mould in the kitchen and hallway until November 2022. The landlord attended again in June 2023 to carry out mould treatment works to the kitchen and bedroom. The landlord noted the mould had returned in the kitchen in November 2023, when it attended to complete treatment works in January 2024, it found the walls to be “wet” due to a suspected leak. It attended shortly after this to inspect the roof and complete some roofing repairs. On 8 March 2024, the landlord attended and carried out “15sqm of mould treatment throughout the property”. Further works to rectify the damp issue in the kitchen took place in June 2024. On 15 October 2024, the resident reported his clothes were “full of damp” and his health was “getting worse”. The landlord attended on 17 October 2024 but reported no mould to be present.
On 7 November 2024, the resident completed an online complaint form. His complaint included:
1. He said he had experienced “extreme levels of damp, black mould, leaks, and structural issues”. He said he now had asthma as a result.
2. Items of his clothing had been damaged due to the mould growth.
3. He said his bedroom ceiling was leaking again.
4. The mould and leak had gotten worse, and contractors showed up unannounced or not at all.
5. The resident detailed numerous times he had tried to contact the contractors and said he wanted to be compensated for the “damage” to his health and personal items. He wanted reimbursing for the 2 months he had a dehumidifier running and wanted the repairs completed to a good standard, or to be relocated to a home that was up to “a legal and humane standard”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 November 2024, this included:
1. It detailed its previous actions to remedy the issues and apologised for the “unnecessary delays” that had occurred due to incorrect works orders being raised.
2. It acknowledged and apologised that the resident was left without cooking facilities for a longer period of time than it had arranged in June 2024 when works took place in the kitchen.
3. It acknowledged it had not actioned follow on works regarding a potential leak on 17 October 2024 until 11 November 2024.
4. It had made attempts to contact the customer to arrange an inspection of the property following this. It had left a voicemail and arranged an inspection for 26 November 2024, following which it said, any and all required remedial works would be raised and completed in line with its agreed repairs process.
5. It provided the contact details for its insurance team for the resident to contact about his damaged items.
6. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the level of service.
The resident emailed his MP on 13 January 2025, who subsequently forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord. The landlord accepted this as a stage 2 complaint. The resident said the landlord had attended on 3 January 2025, cleaned the mould with his bleach, and were yet to make any repairs to the leak coming through the ceiling. The resident had been advised anti-condensation vents would be installed but, after 3 months this still had not been completed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 February 2025, which included:
1. It confirmed it had inspected the property as previously arranged on 26 November 2024 and raised the following works:
  1. “Low level air brick to be blocked.
  2. High level air brick to be converted to an anti-condensation vent.
  3. Painting of the hallway following completion of plaster works.
  4. Mould treatment to be carried out in the bathroom, hallway, and bedroom.”
2. It confirmed it had completed the mould treatment to the hallway and bathroom on 16 December 2024, but the bedroom was “too wet with condensation for the treatment to be effective”.
3. It re-attended on 3 January 2025 to complete the treatment to the bedroom and painted the hallway.
4. It advised it had discussed the concerns about an operative using the resident’s bleach with the operative, who had denied this allegation. It said it was unable to verify the version of events as outlined in the resident’s complaint without evidence.
5. It advised of a current supplier issue which had prevented the installation of the anti-condensation vent being completed. Due to the uncontrollable delays, its contractor was in the process of trying to source alternative solutions.
6. It confirmed the low-level air brick could not be blocked up until the new anti-condensation vent was fitted.
7. It said its stage 1 complaint response identified, acknowledged and addressed the delays experienced appropriately at that time. It had been unable to identify any further service failures as part of its stage 2 investigation and therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 19 February 2025. He said his health had been impacted and his belongings had been damaged. He said he had been “actively neglected and ignored” over the course of 3 years. He wanted compensation, a written apology, the landlord to complete the repairs and to be relocated to a property that was “up to the health code immediately”.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

The resident contacted his MP on 29 March 2025; he said the property still had “black mould” and it was affecting his physical and mental wellbeing. He said he had been diagnosed with Raynaud’s syndrome which is not helped with the cold temperature of the flat. He said the contractors had advised multiple times that he was not allowed to have the heating on as that was what was making the mould and condensation worse.
It is unclear what date the landlord responded, however it responded to the resident as below:
1. Following its stage 2 response, it had arranged a couple of appointments that did not go ahead but on 8 April 2025 works were completed to install the anti-condensation vent. In addition, it completed 30sqm of stage 3 mould treatment to affected areas in the bedroom. It said the resident should report any future issues with mould to its repairs team.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Evidence has been seen that shows the resident considers that the conditions in his property he has experienced has impacted his wellbeing. It is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the condition of the property and the resident’s wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
This Service will not consider claims for damaged personal items or financial loss, as these should be referred to the landlord’s insurers. Unlike the courts or insurance companies, we are not able to make a legally binding determination on whether the landlord has been negligent or whether it is liable for damages.
It is evident the resident reported mould, a number of years prior to the complaint. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s actions in the 12-month period prior to his formal complaint. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period of the matter occurring, normally being within 12-months.

Damp and mould

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including internal walls. The resident would be responsible for reporting repair issues, keeping the interior of the property in a good and clean condition, and allowing access for the landlord to complete required repairs.
The landlord’s housing repairs policy sets out the landlord’s priority system for repairs and the timeframe within which it will aim to complete each category of repair. From an emergency within 24 hours, urgent within 5 working days, to routine repairs within 20 working days. This policy says severe cases of dampness or mould growth will be inspected by a surveyor and any required repairs will take place as a routine repair. Minor mould growth will be addressed by its contractors.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate to determine the cause of damp, mould and condensation in its properties. It will also, inform the resident of findings following a contractor visit, including identifying possible causes, recommending effective solutions, all necessary remedial works, and the estimated timescales to complete the works. It says residents are to raise repairs directly with its contractors to report damp and mould. If it is the first report of damp and mould, its contractors will inspect the property within 5 working days, follow on works will then be completed within 15 working days. A repeat occurrence longer than 6 weeks, within a 3-year period will have a desktop review and the resident advised if a surveyor needs to attend.
While events prior to November 2023 do not form part of the Ombudsman’s investigation, it is important to note that the evidence made available to us shows the landlord had treated mould in the kitchen at least twice before in November 2022 and June 2023. Just 5 months after the June 2023 works, the resident reported mould in the kitchen again. While it was reasonable that the landlord initially treated mould, it should have recognised that the problem kept returning and considered alternative options, as the resident reported mould again so soon. A review of this may have resulted in the landlord to put in a place a lasting and effective fix at an earlier opportunity.
Following reports of the mould returning in November 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended to complete a mould treatment on 5 January 2024. During the visit they identified a possible leak as the wall was reported as being wet. It raised a works order on 24 January 2024 to investigate the property above, it attended on 25 January 2024 but found no leak from above. Its operative suggested the roof should be checked. The landlord raised a subsequent works order to investigate a potential roof leak into the property above on 6 February 2024. It concluded after an inspection on 8 February 2024 that no defect was found with the roof and there was no sign of water ingress into the property above. The landlord raised a duplicate works order on 28 February 2024 to inspect the property above but could not gain access. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that incorrect works orders had been raised, however, it is not clear if the cause of the wet kitchen wall was identified at any point. According to the landlord’s records it applied a sealant to the wall to treat the mould following a roof leak on 8 March 2024.
Following this the landlord attended the resident’s property on multiple occasions throughout June 2024 to carry out further works to resolve the damp and mould in the hallway and kitchen. On 8 July 2024, the walls in the property were found to be “still wet” so plastering work could not go ahead. It is evident the resident had a dehumidifier left at this time to help dry the property out. It is not clear if the landlord pro-actively arranged a follow up visit with the resident, its records indicate a further works order raised on 19 July 2024 stating the property was extremely damp and the dehumidifier was not working. It attended on 23 July 2024, found the dehumidifier to be working as it should, and advised the resident to continue to use it despite his concerns over the cost. It is not evident that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about his electricity bill at the time which was not reasonable.
It can take more than 1 attempt to resolve issues such as damp and mould as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue from the outset and there may be more than one contributing factor to the damp and mould growth. Different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved but this would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. It is evident that the landlord was attempting to treat the mould and carried out multiple repairs to do so before the resident made his complaint. It is not clear however, if the landlord investigated the potential underlying cause of the damp and mould, which is not reasonable.
Where there are reports of damp and mould the Ombudsman would always expect the landlord to undertake appropriate investigations to determine the cause. If it is determined that it is being caused by problems with the fabric of the property, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to take thorough and effective steps to resolve the issues as per the recommendations in this Services spotlight report, damp and mould, it’s not lifestyle, October 2021. Where it is a problem caused by the resident’s use of the property that the resident cannot reasonably change, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to work with the resident to resolve the issue.
It is not clear if the landlord inspected the property before the resident made his complaint in November 2024, which is not reasonable as detailed above, the resident had been experiencing recurring damp and mould for a prolonged period. The landlord inspected the property on 26 November 2024. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed its surveyors do not produce inspection reports, instead the necessary jobs are raised. It is therefore not conclusive what the extent of the damp and mould was at this time and the landlord is not able to demonstrate is acted appropriately and in line with its own policy.
The landlord completed all remaining remedial works in April 2025, although the landlord advised this delay was due to supply issues with a vent, and it is clear there were issues with contacting the resident to arrange appointments, it should have considered if it could have carried out a temporary measure to help eradicate the issues experienced by the resident in this time.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord or its contractors gave the resident advice or information to help with the management of damp and mould in the home in line with good practice guidance. The landlord referenced condensation in its stage 2 response, but it is not evident the landlord had discussed this with the resident previously. As the problem kept returning it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider what advice it gave to the resident. It could also have considered whether the resident fully understood the advice and whether he needed any support implementing it. Although it was after the landlord’s internal complaint process, it is a concern that the resident, in March 2025, told his MP he had been advised multiple times that he was not allowed to have the heating on as that was what was making the mould and condensation worse.
In addition to the damp and mould the resident complained about a recurring leak to his bedroom. According to the landlord’s repair records, it attended on 18 January 2024, to investigate a leak into the bedroom of the resident’s property. It traced the leak to a felt roof and carried out remedial work. The resident reported in his complaint the bedroom ceiling was leaking “again”. Although the landlord attended promptly as an emergency on 11 November 2024, it could not gain access to the property above and noted it could be an internal rainwater pipe. It attended again on 15 November 2024 and reported no dripping water in the resident’s property, but the bedroom ceiling had visible water stains. It is not clear if these stains were in situ from the previous leak. It is also not clear if the landlord carried out any further investigations to this leak which was not reasonable and may have exacerbated the damp and mould conditions in the property.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident or its contractor, and it failed to demonstrate adequate oversight of its repairs service. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of the property, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, it should have done more to monitor the repeated reports of damp and mould rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused but awarded no offer of redress. Its stage 2 response did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it found no further failings. The Ombudsman disagrees with the landlord’s final decision.
In this case, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord. Although it is noted that there were issues with access or arranging appointments, overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it followed its own damp and mould policy. The resident reported recurring mould, which in accordance with its policy should have been reviewed with the view to potentially arranging a surveyor to attend the property. The landlord has not evidenced it inspected the property before the resident made his complaint in November 2024. It carried out some treatment works in December and January 2024, but its records do not indicate the severity of the mould in the property, it then carried out further treatment works in April 2025. It is likely this would have caused inconvenience to the resident in the loss of full enjoyment of his home. It is also not clear what advice or support was given to the resident during this time. In addition to this, the landlord’s records do not indicate the landlord carried out adequate or thorough investigations into the underlying cause of the recurring damp and mould.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its identified failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation. The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to his rent account or similar, unless the resident requests this.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must arrange to complete a post inspection survey ensuring that completed works have provided an enduring solution by means of a moisture testing survey.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its repairs monitoring and communication. It should provide an update to the Ombudsman to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. In particular the landlord should consider:
1. Its operational oversight of contractor performance, with a particular focus on how cases such as this could be highlighted earlier, remedial strategies set out, enacted and tracked through to enduring remedy.
2. Its communication processes with residents when repairs are raised to multiple contractors.
3. Its record keeping processes, with a particular focus on how it records customer interactions and agreed actions.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 8 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure it has an agreed means to engage and communicate with the resident and may wish to consider a preferred method of contact.
The landlord has advised its surveyors do not produce inspection reports; jobs are raised and issued to contractors accordingly. It is recommended the landlord reconsider its position on this, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repair and maintenance published in May 2025.