Watchdog condemns Edinburgh after visually impaired tenant offered mouldy council property

The complaint was brought by the family member ‘C’ of the prospective tenant ‘A’, who is visually impaired and lives with other physical and severe mental health difficulties. ‘C’ raised concerns that the flat offered to A had suspected mould, was poorly decorated and posed safety risks.

Although the council gave assurances that the issues would be resolved, further problems came to light and repairs were repeatedly delayed. ‘A’ went on to accept the tenancy but never moved in, judging the property unfit for habitation. A subsequent damp survey confirmed the presence of mould, described as “very minor,” and the council later cancelled the tenancy and any associated charges.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) investigated the case after ‘C’ complained about the suitability of the offer. The council maintained that the flat had met the Lettable Standard at the time of its final inspection, but the Ombudsman disagreed, finding that the property fell short of the required standard and that inspection records were inadequate, with key issues left undocumented.

Investigators found little evidence that a thorough inspection had been carried out against the Lettable Standard, even though the council had an appropriate template available for the purpose. The SPSO also identified inconsistencies in how the council approached decoration and repair work, some of which was only carried out after the tenancy had already begun.

A second strand of the complaint concerned the council’s response to reports about the property’s condition. The Ombudsman found that while works were raised in response to reports of mould and disrepair, progress was slow, and the repairs remained unfinished 12 weeks after ‘C’ had been given access to the flat.

On several occasions, the council initially dismissed concerns before later accepting that repairs were necessary, with works being carried out in a piecemeal fashion. The SPSO said that although the council had made efforts to respond, it had not fully acknowledged its own role in the delays, and had failed to follow its own procedures by not arranging a formal dampness report.

The Ombudsman also upheld a complaint about how the council handled ‘C’s’ complaint itself. Investigators found that the council had not clarified the nature of the complaint or the outcome ‘C’ was seeking, despite recognising that it should have done so. While the council apologised for delays in responding, its replies contained a number of factual inaccuracies and internal inconsistencies, particularly around the mould and survey findings. A later complaint raised by ‘C’ was also wrongly treated as a repeat of an earlier one, rather than being assessed as a new concern.

As a result, the SPSO upheld all three elements of the complaint and issued a series of recommendations. The council has been asked to apologise to both ‘C’ and ‘A’ for offering a property that did not meet the required lettable standard, for communication and coordination failures that contributed to delays in repairs, for not following the correct process when a new report of mould growth was made, and for failings in how the complaint was handled.

To prevent similar problems in future, the council must ensure relevant procedures are followed when responding to reports of mould, damp or condensation, and put in place adequate processes to check properties against the Lettable Standard before any tenancy is offered.

On complaints handling, the SPSO recommended that Stage 2 complaints be properly acknowledged and clarified in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure for Local Authorities, and that complaint responses be accurate and grounded in the evidence available. The council has been asked to provide evidence that it has acted on the recommendations by a set deadline.

The case follows a similar complaint upheld against City of Edinburgh Council in June 2026, in which a tenant with chronic respiratory issues was placed in a damp property.

The City of Edinburgh Council has been approached for comment.