From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Waverley Borough Council (202325469)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325469

Waverley Borough Council

23 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of garden flooding, external repairs, and recharge concerns.
    3. Aids and adaptations queries.
    4. Reports of cooker issues.
    5. Safeguarding concerns.
    6. Associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident’s secure tenancy began in 2018. The property is a semi-detached house. The landlord is a council and for the purposes of this report is referred to as ‘the landlord’. The resident had an aids and adaptations assessment which was completed by a separate council, which is referred to as ‘the council’. The resident’s complaint was made to the landlord by a representative from an advocacy service. For the purposes of this report both the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident’, except where it is necessary to distinguish between them.
  2. From November 2022 the landlord completed inspections and made multiple repairs to the resident’s property. Its external works included drainage issues, steps, outhouse repairs, fencing, and a retaining wall. It noted that some of these works were associated with excavation carried out by the resident and would be rechargeable. Its property works included gutter repairs, a damp and mould inspection, and treatment of the ceilings.
  3. On 1 August 2023 the resident made her complaint to the landlord, which she escalated to stage 2 the following month. She said that she had been experiencing damp and mould issues for over a year. She questioned the effectiveness of the retaining wall and fencing and why the works were rechargeable. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses acknowledged that no mould removal works had been done in 2022. It detailed its actions and further intentions in 2023, including window, door, and kitchen renewals. It explained why some of the garden works had been rechargeable.
  4. On 18 April 2024 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord, which she escalated on 5 July 2024. She said that there were continuing garden flooding issues and outstanding external works. She highlighted outstanding internal works including damp and mould. She said that the landlord had not resolved her broken cooker issue following her kitchen renewal. She raised safeguarding concerns about the landlord’s contractors. She highlighted her pain and mobility issues and the time taken to action her wet room referral, which it had received from the council.
  5. The landlord sent the resident (and her representative) its stage 1 and 2 responses, on 4 July and 7 August 2024 respectively. The key points were:
    1. It apologised for its delayed stage 1 response. It also apologised for its works delays, which it said were in part due to access issues.
    2. It said that at its recent visit the resident had confirmed that all works had been completed except for the forthcoming painting of her bathroom ceiling,
    3. It stated that she had confirmed that she would accept the hob and oven it had offered her.
    4. It said that she had not raised any safeguarding concerns directly to it. It explained how she should do so if necessary.
    5. It explained the reasons that aids and adaptations were taking longer than usual and the action she could take.
  6. In October 2024 the landlord’s inspection identified that the resident’s bathroom ceiling still needed painting. In February 2025 it recorded that it had left cards for the resident having not gained access. The same month the resident told her representative that she still had uncovered drains from her external works. In May 2025 the landlord completed the resident’s wet room installation but told us that it had not yet been signed off as she was unhappy with it.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord undertook the resident’s wet room installation 9 months after the conclusion of her complaint. As such, it has not been considered in the assessment below. If the resident has concerns about the installation she could consider making a new complaint to the landlord. She could then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider her new complaint.
  2. However, the resident’s queries to the landlord ahead of the installation did form part of her complaint and therefore have been considered here.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance compensation policy mainly concerns expenses and statutory payments but states that it may consider compensation when its actions have caused inconvenience.
  2. On 1 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that her property had suffered from damp and mould for over a year. The relevant evidence that we have seen does not begin until the end of 2022. Nonetheless, the landlord addressed its earlier actions in its complaint response to the resident.
  3. The landlord explained that, after the resident had cancelled earlier appointments due to illness, it had completed a damp and mould inspection in May 2022. It said that it had identified condensation and provided advice but accepted that it had failed to raise works to treat the mould. It further described its actions during the first half of 2023. It accepted that some of the works it had raised, including insulation and mould treatment, had not been completed by its contractor.
  4. Similar contractor issues continued through the remainder of the year and into 2024. The evidence we have seen through this period shows the landlord’s monitoring of its contractor. Its photographic inspection reports represented good record keeping and its readiness to challenge substandard works was notable. Nonetheless, the regular workmanship issues that it identified, and the recalls and further works this required, would have prolonged and added to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress.
  5. One example of this was the mould treatment to the resident’s ceilings. The landlord’s inspections identified on multiple occasions that the contractor was not undertaking the mould treatment process correctly. It noted that this had rendered the treatments ineffective, which delayed resolution and required further visits.
  6. In August 2024 the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident confirmed that the damp and mould works were largely complete but made little other comment regarding the service that she had received. This was unlike its response the previous year, which had accepted the workmanship and service failings.
  7. Those issues had caused time, trouble, and distress to the resident for over 2 years since May 2022. The landlord’s failure to provide suitable remedies left the complaint unresolved.

Garden flooding, external works, and recharge concerns

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible for maintaining her garden. It says that, if she fails to do so, the landlord may get the work done and charge her the cost. It says that she must get the landlord’s written permission to remove any fencing or complete larger works.
  2. On 15 February 2023 the landlord completed a “home visit form” for the resident. It demonstrated its consideration of her circumstances by using it to record details of her household’s vulnerabilities and support needs. The form noted an “ongoing issue with garden” and that boundaries would need to be “replaced and recharged”. It does not say why the work should be recharged.
  3. Beyond this, the landlord has provided little evidence of when it made its recharge decision or what it agreed with the resident. This represents poor record keeping. This failing is particularly significant for recharges, which have a greater scope for dispute than regular repairs, as was the case in this instance.
  4. From the evidence that we have seen, it is unclear whether the resident herself disputed the landlord’s recharge, or whether her representative was seeking to understand the reason for it via her complaint. The landlord’s 2023 stage 1 response explained that the works had been deemed rechargeable, as it was the resident’s “extensive excavation” and removal of a fence that had made them necessary. It acknowledged that the cost had been paid by a local charity but stated that it had not been involved in this. It later said that the resident’s works had contributed to the flooding issues but has not provided evidence that shows this.
  5. The resident’s representative disputed the extent of her garden excavation and questioned the effectiveness of the landlord’s works in addressing the flooding. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained the work that it had done to date. It accepted that further works to address the drainage and flooding issues were needed. The evidence shows that its works decisions were based on its surveyor’s inspections and recommendations. The landlord was entitled to make its decisions based on this. However, the landlord should be able to evidence its decision making and its contact with the resident regarding the recharges. The lack of such evidence is a failing.
  6. The landlord continued the garden works up to, and beyond, the resident’s second complaint in April 2024. Similar to her internal works, the evidence shows regular quality issues with its contractor’s workmanship. The landlord again demonstrated its monitoring and post-inspection processes. It would also appear likely that the external works issues would have caused less inconvenience to the resident than those inside of her property. Nonetheless, the need for the contractor to rectify or redo its substandard works made them very protracted.
  7. For example, the landlord’s stage 2 response to her on 7 August 2024 stated that the steps were now complete. However, this is contradicted by its repair log that states that the steps were finally completed on 14 November 2024, over a year after they had been started. This was one of several examples of the landlord’s completion of external works being significantly delayed by factors including substandard workmanship.
  8. The landlord cited regular access issues as contributing to the delays in all the resident’s works. The access issues are evident in the information we have seen. Nonetheless, it appears likely that access would have been less impactful to the resident’s external works. On 21 February 2025 the resident told her representative that, despite the contractor being aware it could gain access via her gate, she still had drains that had been uncovered for over a year. During this investigation the landlord acknowledged to us that there was still an uncovered gully outside her backdoor, which it would now address.
  9. The resident’s correspondence with the landlord shows the time, trouble and distress the ongoing garden works were causing her family. While there were access issues, the time taken appears to have been mainly due to the quality of the work, something the landlord was ultimately responsible for. Its recharge to her may have been reasonable but it has failed to provide evidence about its decision making. The landlord’s failure to provide suitable remedies again left the complaint unresolved.

Aids and adaptations queries

  1. On 7 March 2024 the council sent the landlord an adaptation request to install a wet room in the resident’s home. Her complaint the following month highlighted her “substantial pain” and the difficulties this caused her bathing. She queried when the work would start.
  2. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s query about the wet room until the landlord’s final complaint response on 7 August 2024. It explained its recruitment difficulties, its backlog of aids and adaptations, and the impact on its service. It signposted her to information about this on its website. It said that the council had identified the outstanding adaptations that it must prioritise but that this did not include the resident’s wet room. It advised how she could query this with the council.
  3. There were no set timescales in the council’s request, and the landlord’s explanation was comprehensive. Nonetheless, the 5 months it took to provide it was not reasonable in the circumstances the resident had explained she was in. The landlord did not acknowledge or remedy its poor handling of the query, meaning its failing remains unresolved.

Cooker issues

  1. The landlord disconnected and stored the resident’s cooker as part of her kitchen renewal, which began on 10 January 2024. On 2 February 2024 its contractor said that it had condemned the resident’s hob due to a gas leak. On 29 February 2024 the landlord stated that it was arranging to give the resident “a new oven”.
  2. On 18 April 2024 the resident complained that the landlord had offered her a single oven that was inadequate for her large family. She said that her hob remained broken. The landlord did not respond to the issue in its initial complaint response. That was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which explains a landlord should address all issues of complaint.
  3. On 4 July 2024 the contractor said that, on the advice of the landlord, the resident had arranged for her own gas engineer to inspect her hob who had found it to be safe to use. The contractor said that its own engineer had since confirmed this to be the case. The landlord has provided little further relevant evidence and so the overall matter is unclear. Nonetheless, it appears likely that the resident would have experienced time and trouble.
  4. In response to the resident’s escalated complaint, the landlord’s explained that the resident was now willing to accept the “hob and oven” it had offered. During this investigation the landlord told us that the single oven it had offered the resident had been a like for like replacement but that she had wanted a double. It said that it had since confirmed that the resident had obtained her own double oven.
  5. The landlord offering the same type of oven as had been in place previously would be reasonable, because to change it for bigger type would be considered an ‘improvement’ and not something a landlord is obliged to do. Nonetheless, it had the opportunity to explain this in its first complaint response, and did not do so. That was counter to the Code, and a failing.

Safeguarding concerns

  1. The first evidence we have seen of safeguarding concerns being raised was the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 18 April 2024. Her representative said that she was “unhappy about admitting unaccompanied males into the house” and queried how the landlord “discharges its safeguarding responsibilities”. On 11 July 2024 the landlord’s inspection record noted the names of the only 2 operatives that the resident had said that she would allow to do her painting.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response the following month confirmed that it had complied with this request but said that the resident had not raised any safeguarding concerns. It asked that the resident report any concerns as a matter of urgency and provided her direct contact details to do this.
  3. We have not seen any evidence that the resident directly raised safeguarding concerns to the landlord. However, the landlord told us that it was aware that she does not want individual male operatives attending her property. It said that its contractors therefore “visit in pairs”.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. They demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and provided a means for her to discuss this with a female member of its staff.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage process. It says that responses will be issued within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  2. The landlord took 17 and 53 working days to send the resident its 2023 and 2024 stage 1 responses. It therefore failed to meet the timeframes of its own policy. Its first stage 1 response did not refer to or apologise for the delay. Its second stage 1 response apologised that the resident “didn’t receive an earlier response” but failed to offer any other redress or explanation.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 investigations were timelier and addressed the issues that it had failed to at stage 1. Its 2024 stage 2 response apologised for and explained its significant delay at stage 1. However, it offered no further remedy for its complaint handling failures, meaning they remain unresolved. The landlord has confirmed to us that its staff have completed complaint handling training since the conclusion of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould;
    2. Reports of garden flooding, external repairs, and recharge concerns.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Aids and adaptations queries;
    2. Reports of cooker issues.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s safeguarding concerns.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £850. This is comprised of:
    1. £300 in relation to the failures identified in its handling of damp and mould reports.
    2. £250 in relation to the failures identified in its handling of garden flooding, external repairs, and recharge concerns.
    3. £100 in relation to the failures identified in its handling of aids and adaptations queries.
    4. £100 in relation to the failures identified in its handling of cooker issues.
    5. £100 in relation to the failures identified with its complaint handling.
  2. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within 4 weeks.