London Borough of Hounslow (202452472)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452472

London Borough of Hounslow

8 October 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

Background

The property is a third floor two-bedroom flat. The resident moved into the property in 2015.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 April 2024. In their complaint the resident said:
1. They had been living with damp and mould in the property since they moved in.
2. They have young children, and they were concerned about the impact damp and mould was having on the children.
3. They wanted the landlord to fix the problems causing the damp and mould permanently, rather than it being reactive and cleaning the mould.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response on 23 April 2024. It said that:
1. It had conducted a damp and mould inspection on 7 February 2023.
2. It had conducted an inspection on 8 February 2024. It then completed a mould wash and re-decorative works on 29 and 31 March 2024. (It should be noted that records suggest re-decorative works occurred on 29 and 31 March 2023 so the landlord may have got these dates confused.)
3. Following the resident’s complaint it had conducted an inspection on 19 April 2024. After the inspection it had arranged for a mould treatment and re-decoration works to occur on 17 May 2024.
4. It had not upheld the resident’s complaint as it was confident that its repairs team had acted appropriately to address the damp and mould.
The resident asked for their complaint to be escalated to stage two on 30 April 2024 as they felt the mould washes had not resolved the damp and mould issues. They wanted the underlying causes of the damp and mould to be addressed. If the landlord was unable to do so they asked to be moved to another property.
The landlord sent a stage two complaint response on 4 June 2024. It said:
1. It had conducted a mould wash on 29 and 31 March 2023.
2. A damp and mould team supervisor attended the property on 19 April 2024 and identified mould in both bedrooms. The supervisor raised works for a mould wash, redecoration works and for trickle vents to be installed in the bedroom windows.
3. The mould wash and redecoration had been scheduled for 17 May 2024, but the resident refused access for the works. It explained how the resident could reschedule this.
4. It planned to install the trickle vents on 18 June 2024.
5. It said it did not believe extensive works were required to address the damp and mould. It felt the trickle vents would be sufficient to address the issues in the property. It asked the resident to confirm if they wanted it to follow up with them in 3 months to discuss if the trickle vents had helped.
6. It sent the resident a link to its guidance on managing damp, mould and condensation.
7. It acknowledged that the resident had asked to be moved if it did not plan to conduct significant repairs. It provided a link to information on its website about applying for a transfer.
8. It had not upheld the resident’s complaint as it felt its stage one response was appropriate, and because it had arranged for works to alleviate the damp and mould.
On 25 March 2025 the resident brought their complaint to us as they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of action to identify the cause of the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that the damp and mould has affected theirs, and their children’s, health. Whilst this has been noted for context, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, a resident’s health and wellbeing. Claims of personal injury are to be determined by the court after considering medical evidence. However, consideration has been given to the resident’s general distress about the potential impact on their health.
The resident has said they wish to be moved to a new property. In most circumstances the allocation of housing stock is beyond the scope of the Ombudsman. Complaints about the allocation of housing usually fall within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In this case we note that the landlord had provided information about applying for a housing transfer. The resident should raise any concerns about this process with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property:

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to attend routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy outlines that under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 it is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure of its properties.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on a landlord to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it becomes aware a repair is required.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Identify complex cases at an early stage.
3. Regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. Landlords should act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
When a resident reports damp, mould and condensation a landlord should investigate what is causing the issues. If there is a link between building fabric issues and the damp, mould and condensation, then the landlord has a legal obligation to arrange sufficient repairs within a reasonable timeframe. If the damp, mould and condensation is not linked to building fabric issues, then the landlord can support the resident to reduce moisture in the property.
The resident said the property’s external wall does not retain heat, and the windows are always wet in the morning. They said they wash the mould every day and have dehumidifiers in every room, but this is not effective. They said the mould has damaged the flooring, and they are concerned about the impact on their children’s health.
Repairs records in the period prior to, and following, the complaint show the landlord arranged for mould washes to be conducted on:
1. 8 February 2023;
2. 31 March 2023;
3. 31 March 2024;
4. 17 May 2024;
5. 19 May 2025.
When a landlord tries to resolve damp and mould issues, it can sometimes take time and trying different approaches to find the right solution. The repeated need to conduct mould washes in the property should have indicated to the landlord that its efforts to tackle damp and mould had not been effective in this case.
The landlord’s records do not show any evidence that it assessed contributing factors. This was despite the resident repeatedly asking it to identify the root causes behind the damp and mould, rather than conducting mould washes. This would have caused the resident to feel unheard. Whilst the landlord in its stage 2 response said it did not think the property needed extensive works, it could have offered a more detailed explanation of its position, including the investigation it had carried out to reach that decision. It is clear that the resident felt that there was a root cause that had not been identified, and the landlord should have offered a more comprehensive explanation to help them understand its conclusions.
We have been provided with limited evidence of the landlord’s damp and mould inspections, and the documents that have been provided lack detail. As such we cannot be certain what might be causing the damp and mould. When a resident reports excessive moisture in a property we expect landlords to conduct and record investigatory works, this could include visual inspections, moisture readings and hygrometer readings. There are no records in this regard. This either means the landlord has not sufficiently investigated the damp and mould, or its record keeping has been poor. Either way, this is a failing on the landlord’s part.
The damp and mould in the property largely centred around the property’s external walls and windows. The landlord should have identified this as an indication that there could be issues with the building fabric. As the landlord has a responsibility to maintain and repair the structure of the building, it should have investigated this further. It could have also explained to the resident why it thought the damp and mould was linked to internal condensation, rather than the building fabric, if this was its position. It was a failure that this did not occur. To address this, we have ordered the landlord to conduct a damp and mould inspection which considers possible building fabric issues. This inspection is to be conducted by an operative who has not previously attended the property, and they are to ensure it is thorough and complete.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it planned to install trickle vents in the property and would not conduct any major works to the property. The landlord also asked for the resident to confirm they wanted it to review the success of this repair after 3 months. While the landlord’s intent in this regard was positive, its response could have improved by not putting this on requirement on the resident.
We note that another mould wash has been carried out, in May 2025. This is almost a year after the landlord’s final response and the installation of the trickle vents. This should be taken into account when the landlord inspects the property again. It may be an indication that the trickle vents and the resident’s own attempts to manage the situation by regular cleaning and dehumidifier use has not resolved the issue.
The landlord has told us that delays occurred in it addressing the damp and mould as the resident submitted a right to buy application. The landlord said when a resident submits a right to buy application it will only conduct urgent works which relate to health and safety concerns. This is because any repairs will be seen as an improvement to a property that the landlord will likely not own in the future.
We consider this stance to be unfair. The landlord has said when a resident makes a right to buy application it will only complete repairs linked to health and safety concerns. Damp and mould are health and safety issues, so it should have addressed these concerns.
We consider the landlord citing the resident’s right to buy application as a contributing to delays to be inappropriate for the following reasons:
1. The landlord did not cite this in either of its complaint responses. If the application had impacted how the landlord addressed the damp and mould, the resident had a right to know.
2. The landlord has not provided details to us about when the resident filed the application, despite us requesting this.
3. Its repairs policy does not include any details around how it will respond to repair requests if a resident wishes to buy their property under the right to buy scheme.
The distress experienced by the resident in this instance is high. The resident has explained to the landlord on multiple occasions that they are concerned about theirs and their children’s health. The landlord should have identified this and escalated the repairs appropriately. Particularly when considering that young children are known to be more vulnerable to the impact of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord has not sufficiently identified and addressed why there are damp and mould issues in the property.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, and it did not commit to assessing the success of planned works or adapting its approach if the trickle vents were not sufficient.
3. The landlord did not provide the resident with a clear explanation of why it felt there were damp and mould issues in the property.
4. The landlord did not appear to appropriately consider the resident’s account that they were using dehumidifiers and cleaning the mould regularly
5. The landlord’s rationale that the resident’s right to buy application caused delays was unreasonable.
To address the failings outlined, we have ordered the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £300 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
2. Arrange for a damp and mould survey to be conducted by a suitable professional who has not previously attended the property. Following this the landlord is to provide the resident with a schedule of works to address the damp and mould issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £300 to the resident.
Within 6 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to arrange for a full and detailed damp and mould inspection to occur. This inspection is to:
1. Be conducted by a suitably qualified professional who has not previously attended the property.
2. Focus on the factors which are contributing to damp and mould in the property, including factors within the property, the building fabric and communal parts.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a schedule of any works identified to address the ongoing damp and mould issues.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the orders within 8 weeks of the determination date.

Recommendation

The landlord should assess the damage to the flooring in the property to assess if it is linked to the damp and mould. The landlord should provide a formal response outlining if it will repair or compensate the resident for the damage to the flooring.