West Northamptonshire Council (202427252)

Decision
Case ID	202427252
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	West Northamptonshire Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenant
Date	31 March 2026

Background

1. The landlord has listed that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, she has informed us that she has medical conditions which affect her breathing and mental health struggles. The property is a ground floor flat, and the landlord has said this is within a listed building. She began to report her gutters overflowing and water entering the property in January and April 2024. The repairs remain unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not progress inspections or work within a reasonable timeframe despite being aware of severe damp affecting the property in April 2024. It did not show that it communicated effectively and there were further failings in progressing the repairs following its stage 2 complaint response in January 2025. The repairs remain unresolved and there is insufficient evidence to show it proactively sought to correct mistakes.
5. There was a significant delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord did not provide proportionate redress at the time of the complaint. Its stage 2 complaint response was inadequate and failed to provide clear information about how and when it intended to investigate and progress work.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure a senior member of staff provides the apology. The apology should be specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It should also have regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 30 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,300, formed of: £2,200 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould. This includes its previous settlement figure of £1,100. £100 as previously offered for its handling of the complaint. The landlord may deduct the payments it has already made from this figure. This does not include the settlement of costs agreed separately with the resident’s solicitor. The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has paid this directly to the resident by the due date.	No later than 30 April 2026
3	Action Order The landlord must contact the resident to gain an up-to-date understanding of any household vulnerabilities so that it can inform its approach to future repairs.	No later than 30 April 2026
4	Action Order The landlord must establish: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard based on the conditions in the property and the resident’s health conditions. Whether it has completed previously agreed work to replace the gutters, replace the bay roof above the resident’s window, and complete repointing work to the lower external walls of the property. It should arrange to start work within 4 weeks of the due date or explain why it cannot do so if it has not already done so. If any of the above is unclear, it should re–survey the property by the due date. The landlord must write to the resident by the due date setting out: The contact details of a staff member to act as a point of contact until it has resolved the issues. A full scope of both external and internal works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution, including the likely timescales to start and complete the work. Details of any challenges preventing it from completing the work, along with an action plan that explains how it will resolve these issues and the timescales for doing so. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property, or during the works. If it finds Awaab’s law applies, it should show that it acted in line with the timescales set out in the Act. It must provide evidence of compliance by the due date.	No later than 14 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord reviews the situation after 3 months to establish if it should pay additional compensation for any further delays or failings.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident and confirms what evidence it requires to consider reimbursing her for any additional energy usage due to the repair issues.
We recommend that the landlord addresses the resident’s separate concerns about whether her door and windows are due for replacement if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
January – May 2024	The resident logged a repair related to her gutter on 12 January 2024. The landlord completed a temporary fix on 19 March 2024. She reported that the gutters were blocked and water was coming through the wall on 3 April 2024. The landlord completed an inspection on 12 April 2024, finding “severe” damp.
7 May 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She said she made multiple complaints about the outer walls of the building, which were damaged and letting water through. She said she had damp in the property, but the landlord did nothing to resolve this.
23 May 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it completed a damp inspection on 12 April 2024. It needed to complete a damp survey and deeper investigations before raising work. The surveyor would call the next day to arrange an appointment. It apologised for the delays.
30 May 2024	The landlord sent another stage 1 complaint response under a different reference related to her reports of damp and concern the property was cold. It said it inspected on 3 May 2024 and did not find the property was excessively cold or required insulating. It confirmed it needed to investigate the damp issue further and arranged a further damp inspection for 4 June 2024.
May to October 2024	On 4 June 2024 the landlord attended but reported having no access to the resident’s property. It said it found that the external damp proof course could be affected and the walls required pointing. On 7 August 2024, it completed a CCTV survey. It found that the drains were not causing the problem. There was no cement within the brickwork around the bottom of the external wall. The landlord reported completing work to the gully at the front of the property in September 2024.
12 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the situation with the wall had not improved. There was more damp due to rain and mould. She said no one came to complete further checks. She attached photos and said water was coming through the window.
31 January 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said it would complete inspections to identify the works needed. It would then develop a scope of works and address these with urgency, it apologised for any delays and inconvenience.
3 February 2025	The resident started the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair claims via a solicitor. This related to damp and mould in her bedroom, the living room, kitchen, and work required to the external brickwork and roof.
11 March 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident. It offered £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint and its communication. It confirmed that it completed a survey on 13 February 2025 and set out the work needed.
Events following the complaint.	The landlord completed some work between April and June 2025. However, it later found that it completed work to an incorrect address in August 2025.
December 2025 and January 2026	The landlord agreed a settlement of £1,100 for the disrepair with the resident’s solicitor in December 2025. It agreed a separate settlement for legal costs directly with the solicitor in January 2026.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident initially remained unhappy that the landlord had not completed work. She said the situation impacted her health conditions. She wanted the landlord to provide compensation for her living conditions, and additional heating costs. She said it had not completed external works as of March 2026. She wanted it to permanently resolve the problems.

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 resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we have not considered

6. The resident said that the damp conditions in the property have affected her health and health conditions. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. We’ve not investigated if there was any direct impact on the resident’s health further. We have considered whether the landlord gave regard to her health conditions and the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
7. The resident said that the damp conditions caused damage to her personal belongings. This matter is better suited for a public liability claim if the resident feels the landlord may be liable. We have not considered this matter further. The landlord provided details of how she could pursue a liability claim on 18 March 2025.

What we have considered

8. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, drains, gutters and walls. The landlord does not have a repairs policy in place, but it intends to approve this by April 2026. It has informed us that it aimed to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs in 7 days, routine repairs in 28 days, and planned work within 90 days. It is also in the process of signing off a damp, mould, and condensation policy.

Events before and during the complaint.

9. The resident reported a repair needed to the gutter on 12 January 2024, shortly after accepting the tenancy in December 2023. The evidence shows the landlord recorded completing a “temporary” repair on 19 March 2024. However, it is unclear what work it completed, or why it did not attend within routine timescales.
10. Following the resident’s report that water was coming through her walls on 3 April 2024, the landlord attended within a responsible timescale on 12 April 2024. It completed an inspection and found that there was “severe” damp when it rained. The report raised concerns about the condition of the damp proof course (DPC) at ground level, water soaking through the brickwork, high damp readings to the walls around the bay window, waterlines internally, and the resident’s own concern that the area outside flooded.
11. It was reasonable that the landlord may have needed to complete further investigations to find the cause. However, it did not arrange a survey until 4 June 2024, almost 2 months later and did not gain access on the day. The resident told the landlord she was in all day and missed work and a doctor’s appointment. The landlord has also provided evidence to show it attended and took photos. It is unclear why the landlord did not gain access and we do not have enough evidence to confirm if there was any failing.
12. Despite the lack of access, the surveyor raised concerns about the DPC, and lack of pointing, as well as a storm gully that could overflow. There is no evidence to show that it tried to arrange a further visit or raise works which would have been appropriate to avoid any delay. We have not seen a copy of the CCTV survey completed on 7 August 2024, a further 2 months later. The operative reported a lack of cement around brickwork at low level at the time but did not believe the drains were causing the problem.
13. It is of concern that the landlord did not take steps to progress work identified as the likely cause of water ingress into the property. It completed work to re-bed a drain gully near the entrance door of the block on 15 September 2024. This may have resolved some of the external flooding. However, there is no evidence that it took any further action to resolve the concerns related to the DPC, bay window, or pointing.
14. At the time of the stage 2 complaint response in January 2025, the landlord had been aware of “severe” dampness affecting the property for 9 months. It did not take steps to provide a permanent or temporary solution during this time and did not communicate effectively with the resident. It did not show it acted in line with its obligations to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property. These were significant failings over an extended period. It did not offer suitable redress for the inconvenience, or time and trouble caused to the resident due to its failings and did not offer suitable reassurance or action plan as to how it would resolve the problems she had reported.

Events following the complaint.

15. There were complaint handling failures, and the landlord did not show that it took action within a reasonable timeframe. We have used our discretion to consider events after the landlord’s internal complaints process as the problems remain unresolved. The resident started the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims via a solicitor in February 2025 shortly after its stage 2 response. Our guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims highlights the importance of landlords inspecting and completing repairs as soon as is practical when a claim is started.
16. The landlord asked the resident to provide a signature so that it could progress the claim via its solicitor on several occasions between February and June 2025. The lack of response may have prevented it from engaging with her solicitor regarding the claim, as it needed this to confirm her consent. It showed that it continued to act in line with its complaint commitments by completing a survey and inspection on 13 February and 11 March 2025. In its communication with the resident on 13 March 2025, it set out the work it intended to complete and confirmed it would contact her to book appointments.
17. The landlord’s records show it identified that it needed to complete work to the main roof of the block and chimney, the bay window roof, install new gutters, clear soil and grass from around the window and place gravel, repoint the brickwork, complete a mould treatment, provide dehumidifiers, inspect the extractor fan, and replaster around the front door, and bay window internally.
18. The landlord also completed a CCTV survey of the drains on 22 April 2025. This found multiple defects including fractures and required work to descale, patch, and line pipework. It is unclear to what extent this may have contributed to damp in the property. It is a concern that it did not find this in August 2024 when it reported completing a CCTV survey. It completed work to the drains in June 2025 but may have had the opportunity to find and resolve these problems sooner.
19. The landlord reported completing work to the plaster by the front door on 28 April 2025. However, there is no record to confirm it treated mould, or plastered areas around the bay window. It reported completing work to a bay window roof and render, as well as lay gravel in June 2025. However, the completion photos indicate that it completed work to a top floor bay window roof and render to the upper level. It was aware that it completed work to an incorrect flat from as early as 8 August 2025, when it explained this to the resident. However, there is no further evidence to show it progressed these works correctly. There is also no evidence to show it installed new gutters, or completed repointing work at a low level, which it initially identified as a contributing factor in April 2024.
20. The landlord’s internal communication shows that it believes that solid external walls are contributing to condensation in the property. While this may also be a factor, there is a lack of evidence to confirm how the landlord has satisfied itself that it has resolved the external water ingress it identified. The resident had also raised concern that the property was cold during the complaint. It would have been appropriate for it to have surveyed for all possible causes of damp at the time to prevent delays.
21. In its communication with us in March 2026, the landlord has shared that it has had difficulty completing work due to the building being listed. We have not seen evidence to confirm that the building is listed despite our requests for this information. Where a building is listed, the landlord may need to consider its approach and seek planning permission for works. However, a listed status does not excuse the landlord from its obligations to repair and maintain the structure of the property. There is reference to it not being able to replace the fascia of the bay window it worked on due to this. However, it was able to complete work to the render and bay window roof on a different level of the same building in June 2025, and there is no clear reason why it has not progressed this work.
22. It is unclear if the landlord was aware of the extent of the resident’s medical conditions at the time of the complaint in 2024. However, when it provided information to us in January 2026, it said it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. There is evidence to show that she initially made it aware of some medical conditions and mental health concerns in June 2023 before moving to the property. She also outlined the impact of the damp on her health and underlying health conditions in her communication with it more regularly from March 2025.
23. It is of concern that the landlord has not recorded or engaged with the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health. There is also no evidence to suggest that it sought to prioritise work when it was aware of her health concerns. This shows that it may not have fully considered the potential risk of the property condition on her. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to gain an up-to-date understanding of any household vulnerabilities so that it can inform its approach to future repairs.

Summary

24. It can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks or penetrating damp as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset. The landlord may need to attempt different repairs before it resolves the problem. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord completed work it identified as needed, and there have been significant and unreasonable delays over almost 2 years. It is concerning that matters remain unresolved following a settled pre-action disrepair claim.
25. We have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs. Despite being aware of “severe” dampness from 12 April 2024, it did not complete any temporary or permanent repairs to resolve matters during the complaints process. It did not communicate clearly, provide information about the cause of the problems she experienced, or confirm its plan of action.
26. There were further failings to communicate and progress work following the complaint, showing that the landlord had not learnt from its failures. It was aware that it completed work to the wrong property in August 2025 but has not provided clear evidence that it sought to raise work to correct its errors. The impact of its failures on the resident are significant. Its responses to her, and the lack of resolution were likely to exacerbate the situation.
27. The landlord offered £1,100 to settle the disrepair claim in December 2025, via the resident’s solicitor. This was 10 months after the complaint and the landlord missed an opportunity to offer redress as part of its complaints process. Our remedies guidance states that compensation offers over £1,000 can be proportionate in cases where there have been serious failings by the landlord and a severe long-term impact. However, this is not proportionate in view of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble the resident spent pursuing a resolution.
28. We considered the 25 months following the initial inspection on 12 April 2024 and the due date for compliance with our orders, allowing for the landlord’s 90-day timescale for planned work. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £1,100, bringing the total compensation to £2,200 on this basis. We have also ordered it to write to the resident to apologise and confirm the actions it will take to address her concerns.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code.
30. The landlord took 12 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was in line with the timescales set out in the Code. The landlord took 84 working days to respond at stage 2. This was significantly outside of its 20-working day timescale after it acknowledged the complaint. There is no evidence to show that it kept the resident adequately updated on the status of the complaint.
31. The landlord also provided a stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2025 under a different reference. We have limited information about this complaint. However, the separate response suggests there may have been issues with the landlord’s record keeping for complaints, particularly where residents raised multiple complaints about similar matters.
32. The landlord’s stage 2 response was brief. It apologised for the delayed response. However, it did not set out what happened, whether it upheld the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, or seek to remedy the impact on the resident at the time. This was not in line with the terms of the Code. While it apologised for “any” delays and inconvenience, it did little to recognise any specific service failures in its handling of her reports. It also failed to provide any meaningful timescale for when it would likely complete work.
33. Two months after its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that it had not responded to the complaint in line with its policy timescales. It offered the resident £100 in recognition of the delay and its poor communication. While this offer is proportionate to the delays identified, the landlord did not offer it during the complaint process. Therefore, we have found service failure and have included an order for the landlord to pay the £100 if it has not already done so.

Learning

34. The landlord would benefit from reviewing its handling of the resident’s reports and complaint to establish learning. The landlord’s response to the complaint at stage 2 was poor and it should consider whether it has adequate training systems in place. It may benefit from using the relevant training resources available in our Centre for Learning via our website. It also responded to a separate complaint about similar issues at stage 1 and could consider how it manages resources where residents raise multiple complaints about similar issues.
35. We have previously identified that the landlord does not have an active repair or damp and mould policy. It may wish to consider how it intends to train staff once it approves these policies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The evidence for this case indicates that the landlord failed to act on information it had about the likely cause of damp within a reasonable timeframe, indicating potential problems with its information management. It also completed work to an incorrect property and would benefit from considering the information it provides to contractors prior to works starting to avoid similar mistakes.
37. There is also evidence to show a lack of ownership despite finding “severe” damp in April 2024. There is learning to be considered in how it manages cases involving significant damp and potential hazards.
38. Some of the delay following the complaint related to staff changes and a discrepancy between its repair and disrepair team regarding who was responsible for resolving the problems. The landlord would benefit from ensuring it has clear processes in place for sharing relevant information between departments and how it handles repairs where a resident initiates a pre-action housing condition claim.

Communication

39. There is very limited evidence to show that the landlord communicated clearly or promptly with the resident to give updates or explain delays. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.