Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202433471)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a purpose built block. She is asthmatic.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. A leak into the property.
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
      1. A leak into the property.
      2. Damp and mould.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

How the landlord handled a leak into the property

4. The landlord delayed unreasonably in resolving a leak into the resident’s property.

Damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to take suitable steps to manage the damp and mould in the bathroom while the leak repair was outstanding. It also failed to promptly follow through on commitments it made at stage 2 to address the damp and mould once the leak was resolved.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint in line with its timescales.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The resident first reported a leak into her bathroom ceiling from flat A, one of the landlord’s properties, on 7 January 2024. She also advised it was causing damp and mould which was impacting her asthma. The landlord completed a pre-inspection on 11 January 2024 and diagnosed that the leak was possibly coming from the communal walkway above. The landlord did well here to inspect the property within 4 days.
8. However, following this the landlord took no further action until a further inspection on 24 February 2024. At this inspection it diagnosed that the leak was either coming from the walkway or flat A. It took no further action until 11 March 2024 when it contacted the tenant at flat A who agreed to “remove his bath panel to see [where the leak was coming from]”.
9. It then failed to take any further action until 26 August 2024 when it inspected flat A and found the leak was coming from underneath the bath and at the back of the wall. This period of delay was unreasonable, and we can see the landlord mistakenly cancelled the outstanding works order on 18 March 2024 and failed to reraise it.
10. At the 26 August inspection the landlord noted that the tenant of flat A had installed their own bathroom and tiling which needed to be lifted to resolve the leak. On 9 September 2024 the landlord instructed its contractor to contact the tenant at flat A and organise this. The contractor attended on 25 September 2024 and again noted that the tiles needed to be lifted to resolve the leak.
11. Given the landlord had diagnosed this on 26 August 2024, it is unclear why the outcome of the September inspection amounted to simply reiterated this. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have progressed things by this point via some kind of action plan or ideally by lifting the tiles and attempting a repair.
12. Following this the landlord failed to take any further action for at least 3 months. Repair records from 18 November 2024 note that the “ongoing leak from flat affecting [the resident’s] flat…[was] completed.”
13. However, there is no elaboration on what, if any, works the landlord completed here. We expect landlord’s to keep detailed records of repairs to ensure they can be used to meaningfully assess whether an issue has been resolved and to inform any future works. The landlord fell short of this expectation here.
14. In its stage 2 response on 27 November 2024 the landlord then explained that it had repaired the leak at this visit. On 1 December 2024 the resident responded that the leak had not been resolved and was getting worse, and the landlord acknowledged the leak was ongoing the following day. Therefore, the landlord was mistaken to advise it had repaired the leak on 18 November based on the relatively brief and ambiguous repair records form this date.
15. On 12 December 2024 it gained access to flat A and diagnosed that the leak was coming from the “condense pipe”. From this stage until it repaired the leak on 29 July 2025 we can see the landlord faced some issues in accessing flat A to progress the works. For instance, repair records note the tenant declined access on 6 January and 1 July 2025. Internal emails throughout this period also refer generally to instances when the tenant declined access.
16. While we recognise this likely contributed to the delay in repairing the leak, we consider the landlord could have done more to progress things. For instance, beyond mentioning it as a possible next step in emails from January 2025, the landlord failed to meaningfully consider taking action to force entry to flat A as a way to expediate the repair. For instance, emails throughout February and March 2025 explain that it intends to force entry to do so. However, emails on 1 July 2025 note that it cannot complete a forced entry in the following days due to “legal implications”.
17. However, there is no detail which outlines these implications or explains how it reached the decision not to proceed with forced entry. We also note that the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy sets out that it will consider accelerating repairs when there are issues which might pose greater impact to particular residents. The landlord was aware that the resident was asthmatic, and that the leak was causing significant damp and mould.
18. Given this, and that internal emails note sustained refusal of access from January 2025 to July 2025, we would expect the landlord to have considered forced entry more robustly as a means of accelerating the works.
19. In summary then, the landlord delayed unreasonably in repairing the leak from 11 January 2024 until 29 July 2025. Its repairs policy sets out that it will address “exceptional repairs” within 20 working days, and so it exceeded these timescales by 17 months. This delay was significant. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays the resident some compensation.
20. Our guidance on compensation sets out that sums between £100 and £600 are appropriate to put right failures which have adversely, but not permanently, impacted residents. In calculating the correct sum, we have considered the length of the delay, and that the resident was likely caused significant distress by this. We have considered the significant deterioration of the resident’s ceiling from January 2024 onwards as evidenced in photos she supplied the landlord, and the inconvenience she incurred in providing this evidence and chasing repairs.
21. However, we have balanced this against the issues the landlord faced in accessing flat A. Having done so, we consider the landlord should pay a sum at the mid-upper end of our scale. Therefore, we will order the landlord to pay the resident a further £450 in addition to the £50 already offered at stage 2.

22. The resident first reported damp and mould in her bathroom as a result of the leak on 7 January 2024. In this email she noted that she was asthmatic and that she was concerned about the possible impact of this. The landlord inspected the property within a reasonable timeframe on 11 January 2024. It noted the presence of damp and mould but then cancelled any works to address this. It appears to have done so because it recognised that this was being caused by the leak which it needed to fix before any damp and mould could be robustly addressed.
23. We recognise that it would not be reasonable to try and fully resolve the damp and mould in the bathroom until the leak had first been addressed. However, we would expect the landlord to have considered what steps it could take to mitigate the impact on the resident in the meantime. For instance, it could have considered supplying dehumidifiers at this stage or completing targeted mould treatments to manage the situation. The landlord had a duty under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to ensure that it provided a home free of hazards. The HHSRS also defines damp and mould as potential category 1 hazards.
24. The only evidence we have seen related to any action to manage the situation in the bathroom from 7 January 2024 onwards is an email from the landlord to the resident’s councillor on 15 July 2025 which notes it had delivered a dehumidifier at some stage. However, there is no record of this, so we are unable to take a view on when, or if, the landlord installed a dehumidifier. Therefore, we are not considered the landlord took suitable action at any stage from January 2024 onwards to manage the impact of the damp and mould with proper consideration for its duties under the HHSRS.
25. This lack of action over such a significant period of time is concerning. Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould recommends that, where extensive works may be required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage. There is no indication the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability and the appropriateness of a temporary decant at any stage as per this recommendation.
26. In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to addressing the damp and mould in the bathroom once it had repaired the leak. However, following the leak repair on 29 July 2025 it does not appear to have completed any works. Repair notes the landlord supplied in October 2025 from 22 September 2025 note that mushrooms had been growing out of the bathroom ceiling for over a month, which indicates the situation had worsened. However, there is no completion date for these works. We therefore consider it likely that they remain outstanding.
27. For this reason, we will order the landlord to complete works to address any outstanding damp and mould in the bathroom and what steps it can take to mitigate any ongoing impact on the resident in the meantime.
28. We will also order the landlord to pay the resident compensation. In calculating the appropriate sum, we have considered our own compensation guidance. We have considered the landlord’s long-term failure to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould in the bathroom. We have considered that this likely caused her significant distress, and that this distress was likely more pronounced than it would have been for someone without her vulnerability. We have considered how this is evidenced in records of phone calls with the resident in which she was described as being “in tears”. We have considered the photographic evidence the resident supplied the landlord, which appears to depict significant black mould covering the ceiling which also appears to have worsened over time. We have also considered that the landlord failed to follow through on its stage 2 commitment to address the damp and mould in the bathroom following the repair of the leak.
29. With all this in mind, we consider an appropriate sum would sit at the upper range of our scale. Therefore, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £500.

Learning

30. The landlord’s record keeping was poor at various points in 2024. We consider the unsuitably brief repair record from 18 November 2024 was the most notable example of this. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on our Spotlight Report on record keeping which recommended that landlord’s keep clear audit trails of any repairs they complete, and how it would likely have avoided giving incorrect advice at stage 2 had it done so.