London Borough of Islington (202429645)

Decision
Case ID	202429645
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	07 November 2025

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about damp, mould, and a pest infestation in the property. The landlord arranged an inspection in response. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the inspection report, the landlord’s actions to address the issues, and the conduct of the operative who carried out the inspection.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. The landlord’s response to a request for the bathroom to be fully tiled.
   3. The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations.
   4. The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct.
   5. The landlord’s decision making when considering a management transfer.
   6. The landlord’s handling of noise complaints.
   7. The landlord’s conduct towards the resident relating to repairs and antisocial behaviour between 2023-2025.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
6. There was no maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s response to a request for the bathroom to be fully tiled.
   2. The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations.
   3. The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct.
7. There was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
8. The following complaints were outside of our jurisdiction:
   1. The landlord’s decision making when considering a management transfer.
   2. The landlord’s handling of noise complaints.
   3. The landlord’s conduct towards the resident relating to repairs and antisocial behaviour between 2023-2025.
9. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlords handling of damp and mould in the property

10. The landlord could have responded more effectively to the resident’s report of damp and mould. It did not acknowledge the length of time that had passed since the issue was first raised. Additionally, it did not take appropriate action when it became aware of errors in the surveyor’s inspection and that the initial repairs were incomplete.

The landlord’s response to a request for the bathroom to be fully tiled

11. The landlord acted reasonably in deciding not to fully tile the bathroom. This decision was based on its repair obligations and the findings from the damp and mould inspections. It appropriately signposted the resident to the process for requesting additional work if he wished to pursue it.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations

12. The landlord acted reasonably when addressing the pest infestation in the kitchen. The records show that the resident only mentioned concerns about the children’s bedroom when he brought his complaint to us.

The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct

13. The landlord appropriately investigated the complaint and explained to the resident why it could not provide further details about the outcome, due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The landlord’s actions were reasonable, but it should consider if there is any more information it can give to the resident about the matter, whilst maintaining GDPR.

The landlord’s decision making when considering a management transfer

The landlord’s handling of noise complaints

The landlord’s conduct towards the resident relating to repairs and antisocial behaviour between 2023-2025

14. The resident has raised complaint issues which were not raised and addressed during the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised these complaints initially. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of damp and mould in the property. This is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider if it is able to provide information to the resident about whether any learning or similar actions were taken forward at the conclusion of the conduct investigation, to prevent similar instances happening in the future. The landlord should only do so if it is satisfied that the information it provides remains compliant with GDPR guidelines.
The landlord should pay the resident any part of its £50 compensation in respect of its complaint handling, that it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 January 2023	The resident mentioned potential damp and mould to a surveyor when he attended the property to inspect the bathroom door and frame. The surveyor recommended that an inspection of the area should take place and said he would tell the landlord this.
25 July 2024	An inspection of the resident’s property was completed by a surveyor, after the resident had reported damp and mould being present in the bathroom area. The surveyor said that: Dampness was an issue at the time due to the resident have a shower shortly before he arrived. There was no staining in the property. No issues were found with the drainage, mastic or downpipes. No issues were found with the condition of the bathroom. Condensation was the cause of the mould and dampness, and that there was mould on the external facing walls behind the toilet. The cause was listed as showering conditions. The resident dried clothes on the radiators, inferring this was a contributory factor. A 3-step mould wash was required to repair the mould.
19 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He disputed the findings of the inspection that that the surveyor had documented, and said that the surveyor commented to him “I wouldn’t want you to beat me up in the street” when discussing the tiling of the bathroom. The resident said he first reported the damp and mould in 2023 and that the mould was a structural issue, due to uninsulated walls. He said there was a problem with mice in his kitchen area and he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. As a resolution, the resident wanted – The bathroom to be fully tiled. An apology for racist profiling and unprofessional comments by the surveyor, and the inaccurate inspection report. Compensation. Repairs to be completed to prevent pests entering the kitchen, including fumigation and gaps being sealed.
17 September 2024	The landlord responded. It said the first report of mould it could find on its system was in July 2024. The landlord said the mould was not structural and that it would not re-tile the whole bathroom because it was not required, but said that the resident could submit an alteration application if he wanted to. It said the surveyor acknowledged that points documented in his report were incorrect and apologised if any remarks he made caused the resident discomfort. The landlord would not give the resident more information about the conduct investigation due to GDPR. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the service it provided, inconvenience and time and effort taken to complain.
22 September 2024	The resident escalated the complaint as he was dissatisfied with the response. He disputed the landlord’s decision not to tile the whole bathroom. He maintained he first reported the damp and mould in 2023 and said the mould wash repair had not been completed properly, as the ceiling had been missed. He said the landlord should disclose the outcome of the conduct investigation as it personally involved him and that the compensation offer made by the landlord was inadequate.
16 October 2024	The resident raised another complaint with the landlord about the same issues, in addition to complaints about damage and theft from his motor vehicle, and theft of his mail. He said the pest infestation and damp and mould remained, and also told the landlord that an electrical fuse box in his child’s bedroom was unsecured. He said police had advised him that CCTV and lockable post boxes should be installed in the communal areas of the property.
18 October 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the damp and mould repairs were completed after the July inspection. It said it was obliged to provide up to four rows of tiles around the bath and it would not tile the whole room. It said the pest control team had responded to the issue accordingly and a further inspection of the kitchen was booked for 24 October. It would not provide details of the conduct investigation due to GDPR and said the resident had not substantiated his concerns of racism. The landlord upheld the complaint, but could did not find a service failure by the landlord after the surveyor’s appointment and the subsequent repairs. It did not offer any further compensation to the resident.
02 November 2024	The resident complained to us as he remained dissatisfied with the outcome. He said he had substantiated the allegations he made and provided evidence of the false report being made by the surveyor. He disagreed with not being provided with the outcome of the conduct investigation. He still wanted the bathroom to be fully tiled and for the landlord to offer an appropriate amount of compensation.
04 December 2024	The landlord responded to complaint. It said the resident’s request for communal CCTV and post boxes was forwarded to its tenancy officer. It had asked the damp and mould team to carry out another inspection of the bathroom, following which further mould repairs were completed. It said the pest control works to the kitchen had been completed. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
10 December 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord should have found that a service failure had occurred, as he first reported damp and mould in January 2023. He remained unhappy with the landlords repairs to the damp and mould and the pest infestation. He said he was still awaiting a response about the request for CCTV to be installed.
14 January 2025	In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would not provide a further response about the damp and mould and pest issues, as these had been addressed in previous complaint responses. The landlord explained why it does not install communal CCTV, but said it would liaise with police, community safety team and other residents to establish potential solutions if necessary. It advised the resident how to apply for a locked post-box. It did not identify any service failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to the Ombudsman, as he remained unhappy with the responses provided by the landlord.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint 1	The landlord’s decision making when considering a management transfer The landlord’s handling of noise complaints The landlord’s conduct towards the resident relating to repairs and antisocial behaviour between 2023-2025
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

15. The resident has raised complaint issues which were not raised and addressed during the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised these complaints initially. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.

Complaint 2	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property
Finding	Service failure

16. The landlord’s records show that the damp and mould was resolved in November 2024, following 2 separate inspections and 2 rounds of repairs. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that no reports of damp and mould were made during 2023, and that the first recorded report was in July 2024.
17. The resident maintains that he first reported the issue in 2023. We have seen evidence to support this. Following an inspection of the bathroom door and frame in January 2023, the contractor documented that the resident raised concerns about ongoing damp and mould. The contractor recommended that an inspection should take place and noted that the issue would be raised with the landlord during office hours.
18. We have not seen any records to confirm whether an inspection subsequently took place. The contractor recorded the matter on the initial job card, but it is unclear whether the contractor raised the issue separately with the landlord. We have not seen evidence of the resident raising the issue again until July 2024.
19. The resident raised concerns about the content of the July 2024 inspection report. In its response, the landlord accepted that parts of the report were inaccurate. It arranged a further inspection of the bathroom in October 2024, after which repairs were completed in November 2024.
20. It was reasonable for the landlord to state that repairs to the damp and mould were completed within the 20-day timeframe following each inspection, in line with its damp and mould policy as the records support this. However, the landlord did not give sufficient consideration to the following when responding to the resident:
    1. The damp and mould issues were first raised in January 2023 and no subsequent inspection is recorded as having taken place.
    2. The acknowledged errors in the July 2024 inspection report.
    3. The ceiling area not being treated during the initial mould wash.
21. The evidence shows that the damp and mould repairs have been completed by the landlord. However overall, it did not manage the matter as effectively as it could have. It offered the resident £100 compensation for inconvenience, poor communication, and service failure. This amount did not adequately reflect the extended period of almost 22 months, between when the damp and mould was originally identified by the contractor, and the completion of repairs. The landlord should have given more consideration to this when deciding on an appropriate remedy to the resident’s complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 to recognise the impact of the delay.
22. Once the landlord became aware of the errors in the second inspection report, it arranged a new inspection and completed the necessary repairs. However, records show that this inspection was arranged after the landlord had issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord could have acted sooner, given that it was already aware of concerns about the accuracy of the second report.

Complaint 3	The landlord’s response to a request for the bathroom to be fully tiled
Finding	No maladministration

23. Records from the most recent damp and mould inspection show that no recommendation was made to re-tile the resident’s bathroom in full. The landlord stated that, in line with its obligations, it is required to tile up to four rows only, to prevent water damage to exposed areas.
24. The landlord signposted the resident to submit an alteration request if he wished to have the entire bathroom re-tiled. This approach is consistent with its housing repairs policy.
25. Given that no recommendation was made to re-tile the bathroom following the inspections and that the landlord was not obligated to do so, its decision not to do so was fair and reasonable.

Complaint 4	The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations
Finding	No maladministration

26. The resident complained that the pest issue had not subsided and there was still evidence of infestation in his children’s room.
27. The landlord’s records show that the pest control team attended the resident’s property 4 times to inspect the kitchen area. The operative recommended proofing works to the kitchen, which the landlord then completed in October 2024.
28. The records indicate that the resident initially reported pest activity in the kitchen. It was reasonable for the pest control team and the landlord to focus on that area when carrying out inspections and repairs. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident raised concerns about pests in the children’s room prior to contacting us. If the resident continues to have concerns, he should report them to the landlord so they can be addressed appropriately.
29. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps which was in line with its pest control policy, to investigate and address the pest infestation of the resident’s kitchen area.

Complaint 5	The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

30. The landlord informed the resident that it could not share specific details about the outcome of its internal conduct investigation due to data protection requirements under GDPR. The resident expressed frustration with this decision, saying that he had submitted evidence which he believed substantiates the complaint. He says the complaint directly involved him and his family and therefore, he should be advised of the outcome.
31. The landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident that it could not disclose the requested information. Its complaints policy explains that it may not be possible to update residents on the progress or outcome of staff-related complaints due to confidentiality. If the resident remains dissatisfied, he may contact the Information Commissioner’s Office for further advice.
32. There is evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint and treated it with the appropriate seriousness. It obtained an account from the surveyor and said he would be interviewed as part of the investigation. It acknowledged there were errors in the inspection report, but that these did not change the overall outcome of the inspection and the subsequent repairs which took place. This is supported by the second inspection report which was completed in November 2024, where similar repairs to the damp and mould which were suggested following the first inspection, were also recommended.
33. The landlord informed the resident of the actions it would take to investigate his concerns and explained that it could not share further details of the outcome. It apologised for the resident’s experience and for him feeling that he had not been treated with courtesy by the surveyor.
34. Understandably, the resident may be disappointed that no more information can be shared with him about the outcome, given the nature of the complaint he made. Although the landlord may not be able to provide any more specific information, it may wish to consider what further information it can provide, whilst maintaining GDPR, or explain to the resident whether any learning or similar actions were taken, to help improve the service its operatives provide in the future.
35. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its complaint policy, in respect of how it investigated the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Complaint 6	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

36. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints in 5 days. It says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
37. The landlord acknowledged the initial stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within its timeframes. The landlord responded 6 days outside of its stated timescales to the original stage 1 complaint. It offered the resident £25 to remedy this.
38. There is no evidence to show when the second stage 1 and stage 2 complaints were acknowledged by the landlord. The responses to those complaints were 26 days and 3 days outside of its stated timescales. The landlord offered the resident a further £25 compensation for the delay.
39. There was some crossover between the resident escalating his first complaint to us, and making his second complaint to the landlord. This may explain some of the delay in the response being provided.
40. Whilst delays did occur, there is no evidence of any specific impact on the resident from the landlord taking longer to respond than it should have. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, and offered the resident reasonable compensation which aligns with its compensation policy.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

41. The landlord does not hold a record of any actions taken following a contractor’s visit to the resident’s property in January 2023, during which a damp and mould inspection was recommended. The landlord should consider reviewing what occurred after this visit and whether this highlights a wider issue with its record keeping practices.