London Borough of Newham (202439983)

Decision
Case ID	202439983
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Newham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, second floor flat under an agreement dated April 2000. The resident lives with her husband and 3 children. They have raised ongoing issues about a roof leak, and damp and mould in the property since 2017.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak, damp and mould.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a roof leak, damp and mould

5. We found that the landlord failed to evidence that it assessed whether the property was safe and habitable. This included risks from damp near electrical sockets and mould mites. It did not follow through on promised interim measures or provide timely housing information. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the distress likely caused.

Complaint handling

6. We found that the landlord missed multiple opportunities to raise a complaint on the resident’s behalf, resulting in a 5-month delay in commencing the complaints process.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 November 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £1,200 made up as follows: £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any of the £650 compensation it has already paid as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 27 November 2025
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an internal inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. The inspection should be completed by a qualified surveyor from either the landlord or its chosen contractor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve   The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects all rooms affected by damp and mould inside the property for safety and hazards and produces a written report.    The survey report must set out:    Whether the property is fit for human habitation. Whether there are any hazards, with specific reference to damp near electric sockets. Its assessment of mould mites. Any measures it can put in place to control the leak, damp and mould whilst waiting for the completion of major repairs. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work, including any interim measures.	No later than 27 November 2025
4	Learning order   The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 27 November 2025
5	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident with information about her housing options.	No later than 27 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord considers whether its 6–month follow up policy of damp and mould repairs can be reassessed for individual cases.
We recommend that the landlord explores proactive measures to prevent future access issues for repairs, drawing on the recommendations outlined in our Spotlight report on Repairing Trust.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 October 2024	The resident reported mould on her ceiling to the landlord, 2 months after it had applied a mould treatment. She believed a leaking roof to be the cause. The landlord had previously committed to repairing the roof.
5 – 11 November 2024	The resident reported worsening mould and raised health concerns. The landlord said it completed roof repairs on 28 October 2024 and found no defects or water ingress but suggested the mould may persist due to residual damp. It confirmed it would investigate further and remove the mould.
Between 30 December 2024 and 10 January 2025	The resident contacted the landlord twice stating the situation had worsened. She felt the property was unsafe and wanted relocating. The landlord responded saying that it had located the point of water entry and had issued repairs.
Between 26 January 2025 and 17 February 2025	The resident reported the situation deteriorating. She said the worsening damp and mould was causing health issues. The resident stated that she was frustrated with the landlord’s lack of communication.
17 March 2025	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord and said: she had been reporting issues about a roof leak for 8 years and the resulting damp and mould had exacerbated health conditions within the household. the landlord carried out ineffective treatments, with no follow ups and failed to provide updates. the continuous short-term repairs were disruptive to her family. there was black mould on the walls and ceilings which remained wet, and damp patches close to electrical sockets. she wanted an immediate move, and compensation for property damage, health risks and the costs of mould removal and redecorating.
15 April 2025	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the distress caused and acknowledged long-standing issues, though it lacked records before 2023. It identified extensive water ingress in August 2024 and confirmed a full roof renewal was needed by April 2025, with plans to contact the resident about relocation. It offered £450 compensation: £250 for distress and delay, and £200 for time spent chasing repairs and communication.
17 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she would not accept a temporary move, only permanent, and she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation.
22 May 2025	In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in it responding and confirmed the resident would need to be relocated during the works, pending approval of the quote and timeframe. It increased its compensation offer to £650, covering distress (£300), time spent chasing repairs (£250) and failures to acknowledge and respond to the complaint in line with its policy (£100).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked this Service to investigate as she felt the landlord’s response was inadequate. She said she would only accept a permanent relocation and an offer of at least £30,000 to compensate for “extensive personal and financial damage”.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the situation had an adverse effect on her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim as the courts are best equipped to resolve such matters with the support of independent medical evidence. Accordingly, we have not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can assess if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident said she wished to be moved permanently. We are unable to order the landlord to do this. The allocation of social housing is governed by the landlord’s legal duties and its allocation policy, which determines applicants’ priority on its waiting list. We can assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing, considering its policies and procedures.

What we did investigate

9. There is a history of the resident reporting issues regarding a leak and subsequent damp and mould since 2017. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from August 2024. This is also the period the landlord investigated in its internal complaint procedure. We may refer to events before this for context.
10. The landlord inspected the roof on 16 August 2024 and identified water retention that may have caused leaks, but it did not specify the required repairs. It is unclear what prompted the inspection, so we cannot assess whether its response was reasonable. In October 2024, the resident chased repairs and reported mould, refusing further internal inspections due to previous unresolved issues. The landlord said roof repairs should prevent further mould, but it did not provide a timeline for the repairs, which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
11. Although roof repairs were completed on 28 October 2024, the 2-month delay was unexplained and not communicated to the resident, which was unreasonable. The resident reported worsening mould on 5 November 2024 and reiterated her refusal of internal inspections. The landlord said it needed full access to identify the cause. The resident was required to provide access to the property for inspections and repairs to go ahead. Any delays which occurred because of a refusal to provide access are beyond the landlord’s control.
12. On 11 November 2024 the landlord said the roof was sound and it would remove the mould, but it is unclear whether this was done, indicating a failure in its record keeping. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the mould at the same time as the roof. It is unclear if the landlord failed to inspect the mould, or if it made attempts but had access issues due to the resident not wanting internal inspections.
13. On 25 November 2024 the resident reported worsening mould and asked to be rehoused if the issue couldn’t be resolved. The landlord said the mould may have persisted due to a prior mould wash before roof repairs. It agreed to investigate and carry out necessary works, which was reasonable. It inspected the mould around 10 December 2024 in line with its damp and mould policy and found the leak source was external. However, it did not record what repairs were needed or if any were raised, which was a record keeping failure.
14. On 30 December 2024 the resident chased the repairs and raised safety concerns. The landlord apologised on 2 January 2025 and said it would complete the works as soon as possible. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase for updates due to poor communication.
15. Around 10 January 2025 the landlord inspected the roof and told the resident that it had traced the point of water entry. It said it had raised repairs but gave no timeline for the work to begin. This was unreasonable and likely caused distress to the resident.
16. The landlord told the resident that it would urgently carry out further mould treatment and install a dehumidifier. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out these actions.
17. On 16 January 2025 the resident asked to be rehoused. The landlord noted she last bid on the housing register in 2015 but did not discuss housing options or respond to her request, which likely caused distress to the resident. There is no evidence whether the landlord considered if the property was habitable during any inspections after being notified of damp and mould. The landlord has not evidenced that it has considered its duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and section 9A of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.
18. Between 30 December 2024 and 17 February 2025, the resident reported wet patches near electrical sockets 3 times, including in her formal complaint. Although an inspection took place in January, it is unclear if this was for the patches near the sockets. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its responsibilities under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, or that it risk assessed the potential hazard. It is also unclear if it raised repairs for the sockets and completed them within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it appropriately considered its obligations in response to the reported issue.
19. Between 26 January and 17 February 2025, the resident chased the landlord at least 4 times, reporting worsening conditions, including ceiling cracks and water damage to her floor and furniture. The landlord gave one update on 10 February, stating it would complete repairs by the end of the week. A roof inspection took place on 18 February, but there is no record of the outcome or any repairs, which is a record keeping failure.
20. On 17 February 2025 the resident reported an ongoing leak and mould mites. The landlord raised a work order and carried out inspections within policy timescales but did not address the mites. In her complaint, the resident reported wet and mouldy walls and ceilings and requested an urgent move. The landlord confirmed on 3 April 2025 that a full roof renewal was needed and had put the work out for tender, stating it would contact her about temporary relocation. However, it gave no timeframe and did not offer interim mould treatment, which was not in line with its repairs policy.
21. The resident had reported issues about a leak for 8 years and said the landlord’s responses and inspections had been ineffective.
22. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord carried out multiple repairs in response to the resident’s damp and mould reports, however there is no evidence of when. We therefore cannot assess whether the responses to the reports were reasonable. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord recognised the inconvenience caused and offered compensation above its policy’s suggested amount for time and trouble. This was a positive attempt to put things right.
23. On 9 April 2025 the landlord was aware the resident would not accept a temporary relocation but failed to acknowledge this in its stage 1 response. Although it intended to contact her about housing options on 28 April, there is no evidence it did so. The landlord later stated it could consider permanent relocation if repairs exceeded 6 months, but it was unable to confirm a timeframe as the work was still out to tender. This position was explained in its stage 2 response and aligned with its housing allocation scheme.
24. The resident said the mould had worsened her family’s health conditions. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised and offered compensation for distress. Given the prolonged exposure and repeated inspections, the landlord’s offer did not reflect the likely distress. In its stage 2 response, the landlord requested medical evidence for an independent review. It would have been reasonable to have also provided its insurance or personal injury claim information, in line with its compensation policy.
25. The landlord’s decision to increase its compensation offer was a positive step. However, it did not sufficiently reflect the distress likely experienced by the resident. The resident repeatedly dealt with uncomfortable conditions due to the delay in the landlord identifying the root cause of the issues. Given the impact described by the resident and the failure to complete repairs in line with expectations, the redress offered did not align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which emphasises the importance of compensating for distress. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation to more appropriately reflect the impact on the resident.
26. In July 2025 the landlord was still awaiting a works specification and timeline. It said the roofing system failure was likely the root cause of the damp and mould and had increased the complexity and cost of repairs. The resident refused temporary relocation and internal inspections, meaning access was limited to external areas.
27. While there were delays, the landlord made some reasonable attempts to resolve the issues, though access restrictions contributed to the timeline. We have made an order for the landlord to inspect the property and complete the required repairs. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

28. The resident contacted the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of the damp and mould on 15 October 2024. She contacted the landlord a further 7 times between 25 November 2024 and 17 February 2025 stating her frustration.
29. Although the landlord responded, it missed multiple opportunities to raise a complaint on the resident’s behalf. Although the landlord worked on addressing the damp and mould issue for the duration of this time, the failure to identify a complaint delayed the complaint process by 5 months. This was not in line with its complaints policy which states that it will raise a complaint when a resident expresses dissatisfaction.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint 11 working days after she raised it. This was outside the 5 working days outlined in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which was a failing. This subsequently meant that the stage 1 complaint response was unreasonably delayed.
31. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in line with the landlord’s policy timescales and the Code. In its response, the landlord identified that it had not acknowledged or responded to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable time and offered the resident compensation. Whilst this was a positive step, we have made an order for the landlord to pay additional compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance for any distress caused by its failure to identify earlier complaints.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord has not provided evidence of all completed inspections or remedial works. Some of its records are unclear and do not detail the outcome of inspections and dates of completion or works. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

33. The landlord failed to provide the resident with adequate progress reports or respond to her requests for updates at several points throughout the duration of the issue. This lack of communication likely contributed to the resident’s distress, which had already been heightened by delays in completing the necessary repairs.