City of Westminster Council (202440866)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440866

City of Westminster Council

26 September 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. The resident’s reports regarding staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom flat. The landlord is the leaseholder of the property, another council owns the freehold. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children and she has asthma.
3. The resident called the landlord on 20 December 2023 to state that the plaster on the walls in her toilet was breaking off and was in a bad state. She said her bedroom and hallway was full of mould and it was growing at a rapid speed.
4. The resident made a formal complaint on 14 November 2024. She said she had made the landlord aware of the problems in December 2023 and the landlord told her a surveyor would attend to assess the issues. The resident said a surveyor attended on 17 September 2024 and assured her a plan would be made to complete the repairs. She said no-one had been in contact with her. The resident said since experiencing damp and mould in her home, her asthma symptoms had worsened. She said her young children had also developed the symptoms of shortness of breath, dry cough, and wheezing.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 December 2024. It confirmed it raised an inspection in December 2023 to inspect the property. It said the resident had advised it that an inspection took place in September 2024. It said it could not locate the inspection on its systems or any further information related to it. The landlord said it was unacceptable that the inspection was not actioned in a timely manner and it apologised for the delays. It said it had scheduled an appointment for its damp and mould team to attend on 9 December 2024. The landlord offered £280 in compensation.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said the landlord’s response and actions to date had been inadequate and failed to meet its obligations. She reiterated that she felt the conditions of the property had impacted her children’s health. She said the conditions had also caused extensive damage to her belongings. The resident also referred to increased utility bills which she said were due to faulty windows, poor insulation, and cold draughts.
7. The resident asked for the landlord to complete the repairs. She also asked for reimbursement for her damaged items, additional compensation for the impact on the household’s health, and a commitment to monitor and prevent further issues.
8. The landlord inspected the property on 9 December 2024. The report stated it had identified “moderate mould” in every room in the property. It said there was no extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom. It noted that the resident had a disability and 3 children were living in the property.
9. In a conversation with the landlord on 13 December 2024, the resident referred to the 2 surveyors who inspected her property. She said 1 of them went downstairs without her permission. She also felt they were making eye contact with each other and made her feel like she did not know what she was talking about. She said they said the mould was her fault and was due to condensation.
10. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 10 January 2025. It said:
    1. Following the inspection on 9 December 2024, it completed a mould wash on 24 December 2024. It said it now needed to complete the remedial works and the resident should contact its senior leak detection surveyor to arrange that. It said the resident also needed an extractor fan in the kitchen. It said as another council owned the resident’s home, it was consulting with the relevant teams to identify who should install the fan.
    2. It referred to the resident’s feedback regarding her experience with its surveyors. It said it was sorry to hear that and it was not the standard it would expect. The landlord confirmed it would investigate the matter but that it could not disclose the nature of the discussions due to data protection. It said it took the matters seriously and it would undertake follow on actions, if deemed necessary.
    3. In relation to the impact on her health, the resident could submit a public liability insurance claim to it if she believed it had acted in a way that was negligent or breached its duty of care leading to injury, damage, or loss.
    4. It acknowledged the resident had requested £33,540 in compensation. It said its compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy for which it said it had previously provided the link. It offered an additional £175 in compensation to further recognise the length of time taken to address her mould concerns. It said it was also for the job which it incorrectly raised/closed in December 2023.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the issues were ongoing. She described them as extremely serious for her family. The resident referred to her respiratory problems as a result of the damp and mould. She said 1 of her children had to now use an inhaler for the same reasons.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident has advised that the issues she experienced impacted her household’s health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Damp and mould

13. The landlord’s damp and mould policy which came into effect in September 2024 states that it will respond proactively by arranging for a visit within 3 working days to diagnose and book any treatment. It says that following a report it will always remove the immediate risk through a damp and mould wash. It states that it will arrange the mould wash within 10 working days and ensure it deals with the case within 20 working days. It states that it will post inspect all damp and mould cases and agree an action plan with residents. It says that it will ask if a member of the household is vulnerable or at increased risk and such residents will be prioritised.
14. The landlord has not disputed that its handling of the reports of damp and mould was not acceptable or in line with its policy. It apologised for its failings and outlined what steps it had taken to learn from its outcomes. It also offered compensation in recognition of its failings. When a landlord acknowledges its failings, our role is to then consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
15. The resident first reported the plaster breaking off her walls in her toilet and mould growing at a “rapid speed” in the bedroom and hallway on 20 December 2023. While neither the resident nor the landlord has referenced any action prior to September 2024, the landlord’s records show that the landlord inspected the property on 5 February 2024. The report is brief but stated that it had identified minor mould in the bedroom and it recommended a mould wash for all affected areas.
16. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould emphasises how landlord’s are expected to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to reports of mould and to act promptly. Therefore, the time taken for the landlord to inspect the property following the report in December 2023 was not appropriate. There is also no evidence of the landlord carrying out a wash to the affected areas which is a failing.
17. The resident referred to the landlord inspecting the property in September 2024 and that she was informed that it would complete the remedial works. The landlord stated that there was no record of the inspection on its systems. It is concerning that the landlord does not have any record of the visit. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. It is evident that the landlord’s poor record keeping likely caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in having to raise the issues again. And in living in conditions which she felt were detrimental to the household’s health.
18. In her formal complaint the resident outlined how the damp and mould was impacting her asthma. She said her children had developed similar systems such as shortness of breath, dry cough, and wheezing. It is unclear whether the landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities prior to the complaint. However, as per its policy, upon being made aware of the vulnerabilities and the time already taken to resolve the issues, it would have been reasonable to have treated the case as a priority. In line with its policy, it should have arranged a visit within 3 working days. The landlord did not inspect the property until 9 December 2024, 17 working days later, which was a failing.
19. The inspection on 9 December 2024 noted that there was “moderate mould” in all rooms in the property. It identified the works it needed to complete, it also noted that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord carried out a mould wash 11 working days after on 24 December 2024, this was slightly outside of its service level agreement of 10 working days. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it needed to complete the remedial works and to contact its leak detection surveyor to arrange them. It said it was consulting internally as to who was responsible for installing the extractor fan.
20. The landlord did not confirm what the remedial works were. As per its policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident to show how it would resolve the issues raised. The resident informed the landlord that she was told the cause of the issue was her fault and it was due to condensation. An action plan could have considered the cause and may have reassured the resident that it was committed to tackling any underlying causes. In the absence of this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord took reasonable action to address the damp and mould in the property.
21. It is unclear if the landlord has now completed all the repairs in the property. The landlord noted on 29 January 2025 that the mould had already returned following the mould wash. It said it would need to remove/open up the bathroom wall to expose the issue which was likely a burst pipe. The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest that it has completed this repair. On 7 August 2025 the landlord noted that there were outstanding issues and said it would carry out a pre-inspection of the property. An order has been made for the landlord to provide the outcomes of any recent inspections.
22. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had discussed the resident’s complaint with its senior management team to look at the procedures being implemented to improve the customer experience. This shows some learning, however, we consider that the landlord did not fully learn from its outcomes due to the further delays and ongoing concerns. For example, there is evidence of the resident chasing the repairs following the stage 2 response. And the extractor fans were not installed in the property until 16 May 2025, 4 months after the stage 2 response.
23. The time taken to install the fans was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repair policy. While it is evident there was some internal confusion regarding who was responsible for installing the fans, this should not have impacted the timeframe of the repairs. If the landlord was aware of any delays, it would have been reasonable to show a proactive approach by updating the resident and considering any steps it could take to mitigate any risks in the meantime.
24. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she could submit a public liability insurance claim to it in relation to the reported impact in her health. This was in line with its compensation policy which states that personal injury claims are outside the scope of its compensation policy and should be made to its insurance team. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to clarify if this was also the correct option for her to take for the reported damage to her belongings.
25. The landlord offered a total of £455 compensation to the resident, this was broken down as:
    1. £245 for the time taken to address the resident’s mould concerns.
    2. £80 for the lack of communication.
    3. £80 for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
    4. £50 for incorrectly raising/closing the job in December 2023.
26. The amount of compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy for medium impact. We acknowledge that the landlord apologised and eventually carried out some actions to mitigate the risks. However, given the reported vulnerabilities in the household and outstanding concerns, the action taken and compensation awarded was not overall proportionate. We therefore consider that the compensation should reflect that of a “high impact.” Its policy states that compensation in that range is used to recognise a significant service failure resulting in a significant impact. As such, an award of £650 compensation would be more proportionate to put things right for the resident.
27. Overall, it is disappointing that the landlord has not evidenced that it had learnt from its acknowledged failings. The time taken to fully resolve the issues for the resident was not appropriate and the compensation offered was not proportionate for all the failings identified. The landlord has not shown how it had prioritised the resident’s case given the reported vulnerabilities in the household. And it did not consider the likely distress caused to the resident as a result.
28. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Staff conduct

29. The landlord’s response following the resident’s reports about its surveyors was reasonable. The landlord appropriately explained that it would investigate the matter and we have seen evidence of it raising the issue with the relevant manager. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the likely impact on the resident and how she felt as a result. It did this by apologising to her and explaining that it was not the standard it would expect. It was difficult at the time to evidence the extent of the visit as the surveyor in question was on leave prior to the stage 2 response. However, the landlord reasonably outlined the next steps it would take to address the issue.
30. As highlighted already, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined the findings from the surveyors as a way to show the resident what it had on record in relation to the visit. But overall, we have not found any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports concerning the conduct of its staff.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports concerning staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. The landlord must apologise for the additional failings identified in this report. Specifically, its further delays in resolving the issue for the resident and its approach to the repairs considering the vulnerabilities in the household. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
33. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation. This is inclusive of the £455 it offered in its complaint responses if it has not already been paid to the resident.
34. The landlord must confirm its position on the resident’s reports of damages to her belongings. This must be in line with its policies and procedures.
35. The landlord must confirm the outcome(s) of its recent inspections of the property. If there are any outstanding repairs in the property, it must provide an action plan with defined timescales for carrying out the repairs. The landlord must show consideration to any vulnerabilities reported in the household and what it can do to mitigate any risks.
36. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

37. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping failures in this case and consider whether any improvements are required to its record keeping systems to ensure it does not repeat the same failures again.