From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Hounslow (202435194)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435194

London Borough of Hounslow

25 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to concerns about a kitchen and bathroom upgrade.
    2. handling of repairs following a roof leak.
    3. handling of reports of damp and mould.
    4. handling of concerns about scaffolding at the property.
    5. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He lives in a second-floor studio flat. The resident has mental health issues, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 11 August 2023 the resident reported ongoing problems with damp and mould. He believed it was possible that a roof leak may have caused the issues. The landlord inspected the property in September 2023. In October 2023 the resident said the landlord found the bathroom was in urgent need of an upgrade and asked for a schedule of the planned works. The landlord inspected the property again on 20 November 2023 and recommended a number of remedial works.
  3. In July 2024 the resident made a formal complaint. He asked when the remedial work would begin. He also said he had repeatedly asked for updates about when the kitchen and bathroom would be upgraded. He raised concerns about landlord staff members showing up at his home without prior notice or any explanation for their visit.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 21 August 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. The earliest date for a kitchen renewal was 2025/2026, and for a bathroom renewal 2032/2033. It apologised for the delay in responding to this.
    2. After its November 2023 inspection, it arranged for the living room and bathroom ceilings to be replastered, and the toilet pan renewed.
    3. It contacted the resident about these works between February and March 2024 but did not receive a response from him.
    4. It inspected the property again on 2 August 2024 and raised more repair orders.
    5. It scheduled an asbestos survey for the bathroom ceiling and would update the resident afterwards.
    6. After a damp and mould inspection on 21 September 2023, it attended to carry out a mould wash on 28 November 2023. However, the resident refused this, saying he wanted the bathroom re-tiled, and a new extractor fan installed.
    7. It recognised it should have arranged to install a hit and miss vent in the bedroom after its 21 September 2023 inspection.
    8. It was unable to upgrade the bathroom tiling as it was not defective but would contact the resident within 10 working days to assess his request for an extractor fan.
    9. It would offer £150 compensation for delays and inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He believed the landlord had given conflicting information about the kitchen and bathroom upgrades. He also said he had no record of any contact from the landlord between February and March 2024 regarding repairs. He disputed the landlord’s explanation about why he had declined a damp and mould wash. He said it was because the landlord refused to help move his furniture. Later, he complained that a scaffolder showed up at his property without prior notice.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 10 October 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. The upgrade dates for the kitchen and bathroom provided at stage 1 were correct. It apologised for any confusion caused by previous conflicting information.
    2. It could not provide direct evidence of any appointments made between February and March 2024, but its system automatically sends text notifications when jobs are scheduled.
    3. It recognised it should have given the resident more detailed information about the repair appointments arranged for September 2024, and it would revisit the property on specific dates in October and November 2024.
    4. It could help move the resident’s belongings and acknowledged there was a breakdown in communication.
    5. It apologised for not responding to the resident’s January and February 2024 emails about the proposed work.
    6. It apologised that it had not kept to its commitment to reattend the property, and it had rescheduled another appointment.
    7. It apologised for not informing the resident about the scaffolding.
    8. It would offer a further £50 compensation in recognition of the impact of these issues.
  7. In his referral to us, he said he was unhappy with the way the landlord handled the damp and mould issues and said the remedial works following the roof leak were still outstanding. He said that the landlord’s staff members would come to his flat without notice. He added that scaffolding was erected without warning, which was noisy and disruptive. He said the whole situation exacerbated his mental health. He wanted the landlord to provide temporary accommodation while the repairs were carried out, improve its communication around repair appointments, and acknowledge the impact this situation had on him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his referral to us, the resident complained about multiple issues outside of the scope of this investigation. These included issues such as repairs to the boiler, the installation of a fire-safe door and other tenancy matters. In this case, we will not consider these as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord must be given an opportunity to formally respond to these concerns. Therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue these matters, he will need to raise a new formal complaint with the landlord.
  2. The resident said that the leak, damp and mould had been ongoing since 2018. However, given the passage of time and the evidence available, it would be fair and reasonable for this investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of these matters from August 2023, around 12 months before the formal complaint, up to the landlord’s October 2024 final response.
  3. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of these matters exacerbated his mental health. In this case, we are unable to consider causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being, as this would be better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience this situation may have caused.

Response to concerns about a bathroom and kitchen upgrade

  1. On 2 October 2023 the resident said the repairs team had inspected the bathroom and found that it needed an urgent upgrade. The landlord responded quickly and said it would pass this concern to its investment team. It said that they would update him on when the bathroom and kitchen were due for renewal. However, this did not happen. As a result, the resident had to spend time and effort repeatedly chasing the landlord.
  2. The landlord replied in writing to this concern on 8 March 2024. It said that a kitchen renewal was not scheduled for this year, but that it would likely be due for renewal within the next 5 years. It also explained that the bathroom was not due for renewal at present. This was a reasonable explanation. However, it missed an opportunity to apologise for the delay in responding. This was despite the letter acknowledging that the resident had raised this concern on 4 October 2023, around 5 months earlier. This was a shortcoming.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord’s final response acknowledged the resident’s claim that he had received conflicting information at an earlier landlord event. It also apologised for the confusion and said it would pass feedback to the relevant team to ensure accurate information was provided in future. This was a fair response. The landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and showed it had learned from the issue.
  4. We recognise there was a considerable delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about a bathroom and kitchen upgrade. However, the landlord acknowledged this in its formal responses and apologised. Its responses addressed the main issues raised and included a satisfactory level of detail. It also appropriately recognised that some bathroom repairs needed attention, separate from any planned upgrades.
  5. While there was a delay in responding to the resident’s concern, this would not have changed the overall outcome. And therefore, the adverse effect on the resident was minimal. As such, we consider the landlord’s apology satisfactory in putting things right and have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Handling of repairs following a roof leak

  1. In early September 2023, the resident said that a previous leak had saturated the wall and caused the plasterboard to crack. He believed there might still be a leak in the roof. Later, he mentioned there were occasional leaks in the ‘main area’ and asked the landlord to check this as soon as possible.
  2. On 28 September 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had scheduled an appointment for the roof. It said its planning team would contact him shortly to arrange this. The landlord’s repair records listed 5 October 2023, as the target date. Despite this, the landlord did not try to contact the resident to arrange the appointment until 8 October 2023. According to its records, it left a voicemail confirming an appointment for 23 October 2023. While this still fell within its 20-working day routine repair policy timescales, no repairs were carried out during this visit.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended as scheduled. However, there was confusion about the purpose of the visit. That same day, the resident informed the landlord that there was a disagreement about what the contractor was supposed to do. He believed they should inspect the roof before starting any internal work. According to the resident, the contractor refused to inspect the roof and then left. This was inappropriate. Given that the landlord’s internal records clearly referenced the roof, it was reasonable for the resident to expect that they would inspect this before carrying out any repairs.
  4. The landlord scheduled a new appointment for 20 November 2023 to address ‘the damaged wall’. After this visit, the landlord raised work orders to replaster and paint the ceilings in the living room and bathroom. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had tried to contact the resident by telephone and text between February and March 2024, during which five appointments were arranged.
  5. However, the resident disputed this. We have seen evidence that the landlord visited the property on 3 occasions between February and March 2024. However, these were unarranged with the resident beforehand, and all of them resulted in no access. This was unfair. The resident had previously raised concerns about appointments being attended without notice and had asked the landlord to confirm them in writing.
  6. In any case, it is unclear why the landlord took more than 2 months to arrange these appointments. This was well beyond its routine repair timescales. It is also unclear why the landlord did not inspect the roof before approving these internal works, especially as the resident believed a roof inspection would happen. Inspecting this first could have helped the landlord understand whether there was an issue with the roof itself. This was particularly important because the resident had already experienced a roof leak a few years earlier. The landlord only followed up on these matters after the resident raised a formal complaint in July 2024.
  7. The landlord re-inspected the property on 2 August 2024 and raised several repair orders for the bathroom and lounge. However, there is no record of the outcome of the asbestos survey, which the landlord said was required before starting the work. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repair processes are not operating effectively. As such, a recommendation has been made below.
  8. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord did not identify the need for an asbestos survey following its original inspection in November 2023. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as it further delayed a resolution.
  9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it expected to receive the asbestos report by 28 August 2024 and that the resident would be updated afterwards. However, no update was provided. Instead, the landlord arrived at the property on 2 separate occasions at the end of September 2024 without notice, intending to carry out some of the works. This caused frustration for the resident as appointments were being arranged without notice and clear information about the proposed work. And the resident had repeatedly raised this issue throughout.
  10. In its final response, the landlord provided a schedule of repair works with timescales. However, it appears most of these works remain outstanding. We understand that the resident requested a temporary decant while works were carried out. The landlord initially refused this. However, later, in April 2025, it agreed to a decant and acknowledged it should have considered this option earlier. As a result, we have taken this into account in our orders below.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs following a roof leak was poor. The delays, lack of communication and repeated failure to give proper notice for appointments caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. This was exacerbated by the fact that he has known mental health issues. Yet there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it needed to provide extra support in the delivery of its services, as required by its repairs policy. The prolonged lack of progress has had a detrimental effect on the resident and amounts to maladministration.
  12. Although the landlord offered £200 in compensation for the delays, distress, inconvenience and impact of these issues, it did not clearly explain how this amount was broken down or how much related specifically to this element of the complaint. We have therefore awarded a further £250 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards starting from £100 where failures have adversely affected the resident.
  13. The evidence suggests that repairs are outstanding partly due to the resident’s discomfort with the landlord’s plan to re-inspect the property with 3 staff members. The landlord informed the resident that it needed to assess the scope of works before its surveyor could approve a decant. The landlord should work with the resident to understand his concerns and find a reasonable way forward.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection of the property on 21 September 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had arranged mould treatment for the kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. Its records showed that the works were booked for 2 October 2023. However, this appointment was cancelled. It is unclear why this happened, especially since the landlord had informed the resident that an operative would attend on this date. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was unsure what work was happening and when.
  2. The landlord attended to complete the mould treatment on 28 November 2023, more than 2 months after its September 2023 inspection. The landlord does not appear to have any timescales for dealing with damp and mould. Nevertheless, this fell outside of its routine repair policy timescales. This Service expects landlords to apply a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and ensure its responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the matter. In this case, it failed to do so. This is concerning as we have seen photographs that showed a notable amount of mould.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that no work happened on 28 November 2023 because the resident wanted the bathroom re-tiled and a new extractor fan installed. However, this was not entirely accurate. The landlord’s records showed that on the same day, the resident informed the landlord that the mould treatment did not go ahead because the contractor refused to assist in moving furniture, support which the resident said the landlord had previously agreed.
  4. Although we cannot confirm what the landlord had agreed with the resident in advance, its final response said that its healthy homes teams could assist with moving belongings. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that there was a breakdown in communication regarding the resident’s expectations for the visit and the support he required. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged this in its final response. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who felt unsupported.
  5. No further action occurred until February 2024. This was a considerable delay after the failed November 2023 appointment. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it visited in February 2024 and the resident did not want the mould treatment to go ahead. The landlord’s records confirm this. However, it is unclear if this appointment was arranged with the resident in advance.
  6. In any case, the landlord acknowledged that the resident emailed it in January and February 2024, requesting details of the scheduled work, but it could not confirm if this was provided to him. This demonstrates poor record-keeping and a lack of communication, which likely contributed to his reluctance to agree to the works and would have caused further distress to the resident.
  7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it should have arranged to install a hit and miss vent following its September 2023 inspection. This work still appears to remain outstanding. It also said it would contact the resident about an extractor fan within 10 working days and that it would carry out another damp and mould inspection on 23 September 2024. However, it did not keep to either commitment. This frustrated the resident and damaged trust in the landlord-tenant relationship.
  8. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould says that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident’. In this case, the resident has been left exposed to damp and mould for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to communicate clearly and consistently. The resident was not given enough information or time to prepare for the works. The landlord could have avoided many of these problems with more effective communication and proper consideration of the resident’s needs.
  9. Although the landlord’s final response acknowledged its failings and identified learning, it is unclear how much of £200 compensation related to this part of the complaint. In any case, this amount did not reflect the adverse impact on the resident, especially given his mental health conditions. As such, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. And have awarded an additional £300 in compensation.

Handling of concerns about scaffolding at the property

  1. On 18 September 2024 the resident complained that a scaffolder arrived at his roof without an appointment. The next day, he reported that the scaffold was being worked on again at 8:30am, right next to his window, and it was noisy and disruptive.
  2. In its final response, the landlord apologised for not informing the resident about the scaffolding in advance. It explained that it had assumed the work would not directly affect him. The landlord acknowledged that this assumption was wrong and recognised the disruption and inconvenience caused. It confirmed what the scaffolding was for and reassured the resident that it was reviewing how it communicates about noisy or disruptive works in the future.
  3. The landlord could have handled this better, especially by responding more quickly to the resident’s reports. However, the disruption from the scaffolding only lasted 2 days. The landlord accepted it had made a mistake and apologised. It also explained what went wrong, why the scaffolding was needed, and showed that it had learned from the complaint.
  4. Overall, the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of concerns about scaffolding at the property. It took the resident’s concerns seriously, and it committed to taking steps to prevent similar problems from happening in the future. Its response was proportionate to the level of disruption caused.

Complaint handling

  1. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It took it over 1 month to provide a stage 1 response. This was contrary to its 10-working-day complaint policy timescale. As a result, the resident had to chase several times, causing him time and trouble.
  2. There was another delay at stage 2. Although the landlord apologised for the stage 1 delay, the second delay showed it had not learned from the issue. And the resident had to chase again. While we acknowledge that the landlord’s formal responses were detailed and thorough, the process still took longer than it should have. It took over 3 months for the resident to complete the complaints process.
  3. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. To put this right, we have awarded £50 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards of up to £100 compensation should where there is a minor failure that the landlord has not fully put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s response to concerns about a kitchen and bathroom upgrade.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs following roof leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of concerns about scaffolding at the property.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report. This must include what steps it has taken to improve its communication around repair appointments.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £750 comprised of:
      1. £200 as offered across its formal responses if it has not done so already.
      2. A further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs following a roof leak.
      3. A further £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
      4. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident to confirm whether a further inspection is essential and explain why 3 staff members are required. If it still considers the inspection necessary, it must consult with him about his concerns and explore options to reduce the number of staff members or arrange the visit in a way that minimises distress.
    4. Write to the resident with an action plan, including timescales for the decant and outstanding remedial works.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).