Woking Borough Council (202500018)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette next to a privately owned property which was sub-let by the leaseholder. The landlord was the freeholder of both properties. In November 2024 the resident began to smell damp in one of the bedrooms and reported this to the landlord. He complained about the lack of action and that he was unable to use the bedroom due to the strong smell and damp conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to:
   1. reports of damp and mould
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to reports of damp and mould.
4. We have found service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to act promptly and communicate clearly. It delayed inspections and repairs beyond its own 20-day policy, left long periods of inaction, and gave poor updates despite repeated requests from the resident. These failings caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and left a bedroom unusable for months.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not respond or acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process within the relevant policy timescales.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. While we understand the stage 2 complaint response was in March 2025, we have assessed the landlord’s actions after this date up to December 2025. This is because the repair remained outstanding and the landlord had an opportunity to review the issue or raise a new complaint but chose to refer the resident to us.
8. The resident first reported a damp smell in his son’s bedroom to a Housing Officer on 8 November 2024. The landlord agreed to contact him when it was next in the area. On 20 November 2024, as he had not received an update, the resident reported the issue again. He said the problem had worsened and the bedroom was no longer usable.
9. Despite this, the landlord said it had not had a chance to inspect the property but would try to contact the neighbour on 21 November 2024. On 28 November 2024 the landlord said the neighbour had not responded and it was prioritising other issues, so it could not deal with the matter. Instead, it booked an inspection for 9 December 2024. The landlord’s failure to arrange an earlier assessment was unreasonable. Its repairs policy says it will attend within 20 working days, but this did not happen and caused the resident distress.
10. At the inspection, the landlord found the likely cause of the damp was water coming from the neighbouring property. To reduce the problem, it delivered and installed dehumidifiers on 17 December 2024. These were removed on 3 January 2025 after no improvement was seen. As the neighbouring property was privately owned, the landlord passed the details to its Housing Management Team to contact the neighbour. This was done within 20 working days of the inspection, meeting the timescales in its repairs policy. The landlord’s actions during this period were reasonable.
11. The landlord conducted 4 inspections at the resident’s property on 15 and 26 January, and 12 and 26 February 2025. These inspections continued to confirm the issue was unresolved and damp was present. Between 3 January and 1 April 2025 the landlord visited the neighbour 3 times, made 2 phone calls, sent a letter, and left calling cards without receiving a response. It also contacted the leaseholder in March 2025 to arrange an appointment with the sub-tenant, but this was unsuccessful. The landlord made reasonable attempts to gain access to the neighbouring property during this period and reaffirmed its position that the damp was present and caused by the neighbour.
12. However, during the same period, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not provide clear updates other than in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. The resident chased for updates at least 5 times but received no information about the actions the landlord was taking to address the water penetration from the neighbour. This caused the resident significant inconvenience.
13. The landlord took no action from 11 April to 20 May 2025 after chasing the leaseholder about contact with the sub-tenant. This month-long delay was unreasonable and was compounded by the lack of communication with the resident, causing distress and inconvenience.
14. Access remained an issue, so on 16 June 2025 the landlord decided a contractor would check for leaks via the communal ceiling. However, the visit was not arranged until 22 August 2025. This delay did not align with its repair policy timescales and caused the resident distress.
15. The landlord gained access to the neighbour’s property on 2 September 2025 and found no visible leak. It noted further investigation was needed, including roof checks. A roof survey was booked for 10 October 2025, outside the 20-working-day timescale. No other investigatory work was scheduled. These delays and poor communication continued to cause the resident distress.
16. After the 10 October 2025 roof survey, the landlord approved a drone survey. This took place on 4 November 2025. It found blocked outlets but confirmed the roof was in good condition. Approving and completing this survey within 20 working days aligned with its repairs policy. However, the resident was not kept informed about actions or progress which caused him some inconvenience.
17. On 28 November 2025 the resident told the landlord the sub-tenant had left, and the leaseholder had completed refurbishment works. He said he had no updates for 2 months and asked what was happening. Despite chasing at least 3 times, he received no response. This was unreasonable and caused distress and inconvenience.
18. On 4 December 2025 the landlord inspected the resident’s property and confirmed no further water ingress after the leaseholder’s refurbishment. It took meter readings showing no significant moisture and detected no smell. It agreed to provide a dehumidifier for 1 week and return to repair the ceiling.
19. Completing the repair was positive, but it took 13 months to reach this point. Some delay was due to the issue originating in a private property, but there were long periods of inaction and poor communication throughout. Despite being told that a room was not habitable the landlord failed to conduct any assessment relating to this. There is no evidence to show the landlord confirmed if the room was usable or not, nor did it consider if the loss of a room was fair.
20. While the landlord was not responsible for the repair at the neighbour’s property it failed to use a resident focussed approach to see what steps it could take to resolve the situation and loss of the room. There was a lack of case ownership and proactivity in dealing with the matter, which is shown by significant gaps where no action was taken or the resident was not updated.
21. The resident asked for compensation for losing a room due to the delay. We agree this is fair. The resident suffered a loss of enjoyment as his son had to move away from the property for a significant period while the landlord was trying to resolve the issue.
22. We have decided it is fair for the landlord to compensate the resident based on 25% of the Regulator’s average net rent from 6 December 2024 (20 working days after the first report) until it confirmed the damp was gone. 25% is a fair figure as the resident was unable to use 1 of his 4 rooms within the property. The compensation based on this totals £1,664.58. It must also pay £150 for communication failures that caused significant inconvenience.
23. We considered whether the landlord’s failures amounted to severe maladministration. Given there were several mitigating factors which prevented the landlord from resolving the issue sooner, we do not consider there to have been serious failings. Instead, there was an adverse impact on the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right during its complaint process.

24. The landlord unreasonably delayed its response at stage 1 of its complaint process. It took 18 working days to acknowledge the complaint, and 11 working days to respond after this. This falls outside of the complaint policy timescales of 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to respond. This caused some inconvenience for the resident as he had to chase for an update on the complaint.
25. The landlord responded and acknowledged the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales for stage 2 of its process.
26. While there was a delay, this did not impact the overall handling of the case for the resident. In total there was a complaint handling delay of 14 working days. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, we have asked the landlord to apologise for this failing.

Learning

27. When responding to our evidence request the landlord has told us it is implementing a new damp and mould process and policy. This is a positive step and should go some way to resolving some of the issues highlighted in this report.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping for this case was good. The landlord’s records were clear and easily understandable. This is important to ensure complaints can be investigated fairly.

Communication

29. There was a theme throughout the period of this complaint of poor communication with the resident. As part of the landlord’s new approach to damp and mould, it has committed to improving this aspect of its service. This is a positive step and should help avoid similar communication failings happening again.