Wiltshire Council (202519093)

Decision
Case ID	202519093
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Wiltshire Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident shares the property with her 1-year-oldson. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. On 20 May 2025, the resident reported to the landlord that damp and mould in the property was affecting her health and the health of her son.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
There was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

It failed to demonstrate that it appropriately considered the vulnerabilities in the household and failed to carry out remedial actions recommended by its surveyor. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It failed to use its complaint procedure to put things right for the resident and it failed to demonstrate consideration for the household vulnerabilities.

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 identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500, compromising: £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its response to reports of damp and mould. £100 for failures identified in is complaint handling. 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 27 February 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the property. The landlord must consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the entire property for any concerns with the reported damp and mould. The survey must set out: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair and resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible.) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property, or during the works. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 27 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 May 2025	The resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s recent damp and mould survey. She said that the only action the landlord would take was to fit a radiator in her lounge. She reported that the mould was severe and that she constantly cleaned it. She said that the mould was affecting her sons health who was having repeated chest infections and it was also affecting her mental health. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to make the property safe or offer her alternative accommodation.
27 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said that: It had carried out an independent survey of the property which did not find that the fabric of the building was the main reason for damp and mould. It said that the balconies, cavity wall insulation, and external brickwork was scheduled for maintenance and will be resolved as part of its planned maintenance schedule. It said it had installed an extra radiator as recommended in its initial survey. In line with the recommendations of the survey it scheduled works to upgrade the extractor fans. It acknowledged the resident’s reports of impact on the health of the household and advised that it would install damp data loggers to evidence the issue and establish a plan to resolve the damp.
2 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy as the landlord said that nothing more can be done to address the damp and mould. She said that she ventilates the property and uses dehumidifiers but the mould returns. She said that the surveyor told her that mould should not be growing back in the summer. She said that her doctor wrote a letter recommending that she was rehoused because of the health issues the damp and mould caused her son. She said that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
05 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint. The landlord noted that the primary cause of damp and mould was identified as seasonal condensation and ventilation. In response it arranged for a radiator to be installed, scheduled upgrades to the extractor fans, approved a new ventilation system, and installed data loggers to monitor environmental conditions. The landlord acknowledged that the balcony above the resident’s flat had been identified for future works. It said it would review this specific issue with a view to bring the works forward or carry out temporary repair if appropriate.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy because the damp and mould had not been addressed. She said she continued to carry out mould washes. She said that the landlord installed an extractor fan in the bathroom and data loggers. It had not installed a heater or carried out a balcony repair. She was concerned about the health of her son. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to rehouse her.

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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at and why

The resident has reported that damp and mould has impacted her son’s physical health and her own health. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to seek legal advice.

The response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it adopts a zero-tolerance approach to incidences of damp and mould. Its procedure sets out that it will:
1. Respond promptly to reports of damp and mould.
2. Assess the severity of damp and mould and rate it on a scale between 1 and 5 depending on the severity.
3. Inform the resident of the outcome of its investigations and recommend solutions including remedial works/actions and estimate timescales.
4. Keep the case active until any repairs have been carried out.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out an initial investigation when the resident reported the mould by completing a mould triage form on the phone with the resident. Based on the resident’s responses it assessed the severity of mould as level 2 – Mild. It then instructed a surveyor to attend the property and assess the mould. These were reasonable initial steps for the landlord to take.
The landlord surveyed the property 5 working days later and reported minimal spots of damp and mould. It reported the severity of mould as level 1 – Minimal. It noted that there was a minimum amount in the corner of the main bedroom. It raised work orders to clean out a fan duct in the bathroom wall and to add a second radiator in the lounge. It provided advice to the resident on controlling condensation within the property. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take on the basis of the survey.
The resident raised a complaint because she disagreed with the findings of the survey. She said that she was continually cleaning the mould. She had provided a letter from her GP which stated that the resident experienced chest infections, fatigue, left eye symptoms and a persistent cough. The letter also stated that her son has had respiratory infections which is likely to be related to mould exposure. In response the landlord instructed an independent survey of the property. This was an appropriate response from the landlord to get a more comprehensive understanding of the property and its responsibilities for the damp and mould.
The damp and mould survey found evidence of cold spots in the property. It noted that the external cavity and pointing may be a contributing factor to damp and mould. It recommended further investigations into the external walls if damp and mould persisted after recommended works for heating and ventilation are complete. The surveyor made a number of recommendations to the landlord compromising:

Repairing the balcony above the resident’s flat which contributed to cold spots.
Upgrading the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
Placing radiators on external walls.
Removing the mould with a sufficient mould removing agent and treating the areas with anti mould paint.

The evidence shows that the landlord raised work orders replace the extractor fans, to add a heater in the lounge, and to install data loggers to understand the humidity in the property. However, it did not raise a work order to treat the mould or repair the balcony. This was unreasonable, especially given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns for the health of the household and the survey confirmed that factors outside of the resident’s control were causes of the damp and mould.
It is further considered that there are differences in the findings of mould between the surveys. The initial survey on 29 May 2025 noted a minimal amount in corner of main bedroom. The subsequent survey 18 days later on 16 June 2025, found “various areas of surface black mould within the property”. This supports the resident’s position that she had been continually cleaning the mould. It was a failing of the landlord not to recognise this difference. Its failure to remove and treat the mould as per the surveyors recommendation was unreasonable and caused distress to the resident.
In her complaint escalation, the resident expressed this distress. She reported that she ventilated the property and used dehumidifiers but the mould continued to return. She highlighted the health concerns for her son and provided further images of the mould in her property. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said acknowledged that it had failed to address the balcony as recommended in the survey and raised a work order to assess this issue. It failed to recognise that it had not carried out the mould treatment as recommended in the surveyors report. This was a significant failing considering the reported vulnerabilities and health concerns raised by the resident.
The evidence shows that the resident refused the additional radiator on the basis that she could not afford the additional costs. While this action remained outstanding when the landlord provided evidence to us, the landlord continued to engage with the resident through its tenancy support team to ensure this action is completed. This was appropriate.
The landlord failed to evidence that it appropriately considered the household vulnerabilities. The initial survey assessed the vulnerability as “0”, noting that the resident reported that her “son had been poorly with coughs and colds”. It is unclear why the vulnerability was assessed at “0” despite the resident’s provision of a GP letter confirming the health concerns. Despite the resident continuing to report these concerns through the complaint, the landlord demonstrated a lack of urgency or empathy to the residents concerns.
We find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. It is acknowledged that the landlord appropriately surveyed the condition of the property and carried out some actions to address the damp and mould. It is acknowledged also that there were issues with accessing the property to install a radiator as recommended. However, it failed to demonstrate that it appropriately considered the vulnerabilities in the household and failed to carry out remedial actions recommended by the surveyor. This failing caused distress to the resident who reported concerns for the health of her son and inconvenience as she continued to carry out weekly mould washes.
When the resident brought her complaint to us on 22 October 2025, she reported that the damp and mould remained in the property and that she continued to carry out weekly mould washes. On 19 January 2026, the resident provided us with images of mould in her property that returned after she cleaned it a week previously. An inspection order has been made in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 which came into effect on 27 March 2025.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 10 working days beyond its timescales, however it is noted that it advised the resident of the delay because it was investigating the issue. The evidence shows that it awaited the independent damp and mould survey. This delay was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Code sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint investigation failed to identify that it had not carried out the mould treatment recommended in the surveyor report. As a result, the landlord failed to effectively use its complaints procedure to rectify the error and put things right for the resident.
The landlord should have acknowledged its failings up until the point of its complaint response, compensated the resident for any failings identified, identified actions required to put things right, and tracked these actions to completion. The landlord’s complaint handling did not comply with the Code.
The landlord’s complaint response’s failed to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident and demonstrated a lack of empathy in the circumstances. This failure caused further distress to the resident.

Learning

Complaint handling

This investigation identified complaint handling practices that did not comply with the Code. We encourage the landlord to review this case against the Code and implement any learning it finds to improve its complaint handling.