London Borough of Croydon (202332332)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332332

London Borough of Croydon

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. request for the oven and fridge freezer to be relocated.
2. reports of mould.
3. reports of repairs to the kitchen tap.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy began in September 2015. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, although the resident has notified us that she is vulnerable due to her mental health.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and mould in the property in April 2023. A repair was logged on 14 May 2023 for a mould wash to be carried out and a survey of the property’s ventilation. The repair was cancelled because it was marked as ‘raised in error’.
On 14 August 2023, the resident reported that the oven did not fit in the designated spot. Due to the layout of the kitchen, it was not possible to pull the oven unit forward to clean behind it which meant the resident needed to lift the oven up to reach behind it. The resident also raised that her fridge freezer was in the middle of the kitchen because there was no room for it, and that the kitchen tap did not have sufficient hot water pressure despite being repaired on several occasions.
The resident repeated her concerns about the oven, fridge freezer, and tap in her complaint made on 29 August 2023. The landlord responded on 1 September 2023. It stated:
1. The kitchen was not due for an upgrade at this time.
2. The landlord did not provide appliances, the oven and fridge freezer had been purchased by the resident.
3. The space provided was sufficient for a standard sized oven, it was up to the resident to ensure the oven was suitable for the space.
4. The resident would need to complete an alteration request form if she needed to make changes to the kitchen to fit the fridge freezer in.
5. It had booked a repair to the tap as a responsive repair, which had a lead time of 20 working days. The repair was booked for 4 September 2023.
On 1 September 2023, the resident expressed her frustration at the landlord’s response. She noted that the oven did fit in the designated space, but it could not be pulled forward due to the layout of the kitchen which meant she could not easily clean behind it. The resident felt this was dangerous because it had fallen on her son when she lifted it. On 4 September 2023, the resident alerted the landlord that the repair appointment for the tap had not gone ahead.
On 5 September 2023, the resident discussed the matter with the landlord. She noted that she had first raised the issue with the oven when she moved into the property. The resident also raised that the property has damp and mould during winter, the landlord advised the resident to contact it again in the winter months.
On 28 and 29 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She remained dissatisfied that the tap repair had not happened and that the landlord had not moved the fridge freezer or oven. The resident explained that she wanted a “normal living kitchen.”
The landlord visited the resident on 1 November 2023. It raised new works orders to replace the kitchen tap, complete a mould wash, and overhaul the fan in the bathroom. It also inspected the resident’s kitchen in light of her concerns about the oven and fridge freezer.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 December 2023. It stated:
1. The kitchen tap was replaced on 10 November 2023, it apologised that the previous appointment had been cancelled with no explanation.
2. It could not make more space for the resident’s oven without interfering with the structure of the property. As the oven had been supplied by the resident, it was her responsibility to make sure it was suitable.
3. If the resident wished to remove units to make room for the fridge freezer, she would need to complete a tenants improvement request. As the landlord had already attended, it confirmed it would grant this permission when it received the request.
4. It had raised a job for the bathroom fan to be replaced and for a mould wash.
On 27 June 2024, we accepted this case for investigation. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reported mould, and the kitchen layout.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is understood that there have been historical reports of repairs by the resident. The resident also asserts that she raised the issue with the oven when she first moved into the property in 2015. We expect residents to raise their concerns with their landlord as a complaint when they arise, so that it can be escalated to us within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from April 2023.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 19 December 2023. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.

The resident’s request for the oven and fridge freezer to be relocated

The tenancy agreement outlines that the resident is responsible for maintaining gas and electrical appliances not supplied by the landlord. The resident may carry out alterations to the property, including the kitchen, but must seek permission from the landlord first.
It is not disputed by the parties that the oven and fridge freezer were purchased by the resident, rather than being supplied by the landlord as part of the fixtures of the property. The resident has raised concerns that the position of the oven is unsafe, and that there is no space in the kitchen for the fridge freezer. The resident has requested that the landlord move the oven and remove a cabinet so that there is space for the fridge freezer.
While we understand the resident’s assertion that the oven needs to be moved because its location means it cannot be pulled forward, this would have been for the resident to check before purchasing. The landlord has taken steps to investigate the issue but notes that it is unable to move the oven or the structural elements of the kitchen to provide more space.
The landlord has clearly explained its position to the resident and provided an explanation. It has outlined that the resident is responsible for ensuring appliances she purchases are suitable and fit the intended space. This was an appropriate response.
The resident has asserted that the position of the oven is unsafe. We understand the resident’s concerns, however there is no evidence available to suggest that the oven is unsafe to support the resident’s position.
The resident told the landlord she was going to purchase an American style fridge freezer in early 2022. The landlords records indicate she was advised at the time that she would need to remove a kitchen unit in order to have space, and that this would be her responsibility.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that the resident was responsible any alternations needed to the kitchen so that the fridge freezer would fit. This was because the fridge freezer had not been supplied by the landlord. It advised it would send the resident an alteration request form so she could ask for permission to change the layout of the kitchen. The landlord reiterated this advice in its stage 2.
The evidence shows that the resident was granted permission to make the alterations to her kitchen in November 2023. While it is understood that the resident did not request permission because she wanted the landlord to complete the works itself, the landlord’s action was appropriate in the circumstances.
We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for the oven and fridge freezer to be relocated. This is because these items were purchased by the resident and so it is her responsibility to ensure they are suitable for the space they are in. The landlord has been clear in its position, inspected the kitchen, and provided guidance on how to seek permission for the resident to make the alterations herself.
Although not part of this investigation, the resident has stated the kitchen was installed approximately 25 years ago. Decent Home Standards recommend that kitchens are replaced every 20 years. Based on the resident’s comments about the age of the kitchen, we recommend that the landlord should write to the resident to confirm whether the kitchen is due for replacement, and when this will be carried out.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord does not appear to have had a damp and mould policy at the time of the resident’s first report of mould. While the landlord has since published one, this was after the events noted in this report.
The resident reported that there was mould in the property in 21 April 2023. The landlord’s records show that a job was raised to survey the property but this was cancelled because it was marked as raised in error. The landlord did not provide any explanation for why it had cancelled this appointment or take steps to rearrange it, this was inappropriate.
The resident raised the issue of mould again in September 2023, when she said that there is mould in the property in the winter months. The landlord advised that she could contact it again in the winter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up on this in light of the fact this was not the first time the resident had reported mould. The landlord was not proactive in addressing the mould or the cause of it.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it referenced the presence of “minor mould” in the property. It is unclear from the evidence whether it inspected the property to identify this, or how it came to the conclusion that the mould was “minor.” The landlord also advised it would raise a job for a mould wash to be completed. There is no evidence that this was passed to the correct team or carried out which was inappropriate. The landlord failed to provide assurances it would complete the work which caused distress to the resident.
On 10 July 2025, the resident informed us that mould is still present, and the landlord has recently contacted her to arrange works to resolve cause of the mould. While we acknowledge the landlord’s attempts to put the matter right in light of our involvement, it would have been appropriate for it to take these actions when the resident reported mould in April 2023. By delaying taking action until our involvement, the landlord failed to show it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident has reported that she has been buying mould remover treatment regularly to address the mould herself, the evidence suggests the landlord was aware the resident was cleaning it herself.
In light of the failures identified above, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould amount to maladministration. The failure to follow up on the cancelled job, the lack of action until the matter was referred to us, and the inconvenience caused to the resident are aggravating factors in this case.
To put right the failures identified, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £400 and apologise to the resident. This awards includes £100 to reimburse the resident for her purchases of mould remover treatment, given that it is unlikely the resident has retained proof of purchase for these items. Additionally, the landlord must write to the resident to confirm what work it intends to carry out to resolve the ongoing mould and the timeframe for when this will be completed. This will go some way to repairing the landlord and tenant relationship.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen tap

The landlord’s Repair Policy states that it will complete non-urgent repairs within 15 working days.
The landlord’s logs indicate that it was put on notice about a repair to the kitchen tap on 14 August 2023. The resident had reported that the tap had been repaired several times before and would work for a while but then fail again.
The landlord’s contractor did not attend as arranged on 4 September 2023. The resident was inconvenienced by the missed appointment and noted she had waited at home all day because she had not been informed the repair had been cancelled which caused distress.
The landlord confirmed the kitchen tap was replaced on 10 November 2023. This was outside of the landlord’s advertised time frame for a non-urgent repair and therefore was inappropriate.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged that its contractor had not attended as planned on 4 September 2023, and outlined that there was no information recorded to suggest why this had been cancelled. It recognised the resident’s frustration and it had spoken with its contractor to outline the importance of keeping residents informed of the progress of repairs, and keeping records up to date. This was an appropriate response, it demonstrated that the landlord understood the resident’s concerns and had acted on them in an attempt to put things right.
While the landlord’s complaint response apologised for its failures and outlined what it had done to ensure the same thing did not happen again, the landlord did not consider offering any compensation to the resident for the missed appointment or the delay in replacing the tap. In light of this, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen tap. The landlord must pay the resident £100 to redress the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay and missed appointment in relation to the kitchen tap. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure and the landlord has made some attempts to put things right, but has not gone far enough.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy which was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint states that both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 29 August 2023, the landlord responded on 1 September 2023 which was within its policy time frames.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord stage 1 response on 1 September 2023 but the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint in order to respond in line with its complaints process. The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 and 28 September 2023 to request the complaint be escalated. The landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint was inappropriate.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 October 2023 to advise it needed more time, but it did not outline the reasons or a new time frame. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain why it needed more time and when the resident could expect a response, to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord’s final response was provided on 19 December 2023. This was 77 days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction after the stage 1 response and therefore outside of the landlord policy time frames.
The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration, because it did not recognise the resident’s stage 2 complaint and its response was sent significantly outside of the policy timeframes. While it did make some attempt to inform the resident of the delay, it did not sufficiently explain why this was needed or when a response would be provided. The landlord has not acknowledged its failure, apologised or provided redress.
The landlord must pay the resident £100 in light of the inconvenience and increased time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures identified, this is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has not acknowledged its failure or made an attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the oven and fridge freezer to be relocated
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen tap.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination.
2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £600 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation in this report. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed. This amount is broken down as:
  1. £400 in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of mould.
  2. £100 in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen tap.
  3. £100 in relation to the complaint handling failures identified.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to outline what works it intends to complete to resolve the mould in the property and the timescales for this work.
2. A copy of this should be provided to us.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to confirm when her kitchen is due to be replaced and when it expects this will happen.