London Borough of Croydon (202338569)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338569

London Borough of Croydon

12 February 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. Repairs in the resident’s property and handling of her request for a decant.
    2. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    3. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant in a 3 bedroom maisonette flat. She lives in the property with her children and her tenancy started in July 2009. The resident lives with disabilities.
  2. The landlord issued possession proceedings against the resident on 17 May 2023 due to rent arrears. The landlord also provided a witness statement which explained that the resident told it she intentionally withheld the rent due to ongoing disrepair issues. The resident raised a complaint on 10 June 2023 and raised concerns of disrepair. She raised concerns with:
    1. A faulty and unsafe temporary toilet that remained in an unfinished and unsealed room.
    2. Lack of ventilation system fitted in the bathroom, toilet, or kitchen.
    3. A blocked communal stack pipe causing blockages and backed up waste in her bathroom and both sinks in her property.
    4. Mould in all three bedrooms, bathroom, and living room.
    5. Unsafe electrical wiring that did not pass the safety checks and it could not complete whilst she stayed in the property.
    6. Stained ceiling and peeling walls in her kitchen due to leaks and backed up drainage.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said that she was currently pursuing a legal disrepair case for the repairs she had raised in her complaint. It apologised and said as there was an active legal disrepair case, it could not address her complaint through any other avenue.
  4. The resident raised a new complaint on 23 November 2023 and explained that the landlord had taken her to court on 2 occasions in June and August 2023. The judge ordered a general adjournment for the landlord to address the disrepair in the property. She said it had failed to do so, and explained its actions, and the agreed next steps. She said she was not fully happy with the outcome and raised several concerns. These included its contractors attending unannounced. She also explained the outcome she wanted.
  5. The repairs and complaint response remained outstanding, so she approached the Ombudsman on 30 January 2024. She said she no longer had legal representation in place and explained the outstanding repairs. She said they were causing damage to her property and due to the delays, she wanted the landlord to compensate her. She told us that the situation affected her health and advised about the outcome she wanted. She said she had requested a decant which the landlord declined. She explained the repair issues and said:
    1. There was a water leak from a communal stack pipe that needed fixing.
    1. She had mould in all the bedrooms.
    2. There were electrical rewiring concerns.
    3. There were issues with the boiler.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 February 2024 as the response remained outstanding. She explained the situation and reiterated the impact of the disrepair and ongoing works on her. She expressed her frustration, and the inconvenience caused to her by the situation. She raised concerns with the repairs, including the length of time taken to complete them and her safety.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 April 2024 following intervention from the Ombudsman. It said she submitted a stage 1 complaint on 1 June 2023 and responded on 12 June 2023. It said that the resident had disputed that a disrepair case was ongoing. She had raised a counter claim against the possession proceedings on 18 August 2023 during the hearing. It said that her legal representative raised a counter claim and provided a reference number. It explained the actions it had taken around the disrepair issue and:
    1. Apologised for the poor response, noting that the information provided was inaccurate and did not address the issues she raised.
    2. Acknowledged that works had exceeded the estimated timeframe of 3 weeks and that there was miscommunication between it and its contractor. It apologised and said it was upholding this aspect of her complaint.
    3. It confirmed its position that it was due to complete works on 15 March 2024. The works did not meet the necessary standards, and it had instructed its contractor to complete further works to the required standard. They were then to carry out a post-inspection.
    4. Her solicitor was progressing her disrepair case with its legal team, and it would continue to liaise with them.
    5. Apologised for the delays in progressing her complaints and that she felt it did not fully review or consider her circumstances. It said it handled her stage 1 complaint poorly and it delayed in progressing to stage 2.
    6. It offered £300 as compensation broken down as:
      1. £150 for its delayed response to the stage 1 complaint, and its failure to provide accurate information.
      2. £50 for the delay in progressing the stage 2 complaint.
      3. £100 for the impact and uncertainty caused to her because of delays in progressing her complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord issued possession proceedings against the resident. The landlord submitted a witness statement which said that the resident withheld her rent due to outstanding repairs in her property. The resident also told the Ombudsman that she had raised this as a verbal defence during a hearing. The landlord told the Ombudsman during our information request that she had issued a counterclaim and provided a reference number. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this would usually mean that the matter is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Upon further request for information by us, the landlord has confirmed in internal correspondence that the resident did not file a counterclaim or defence at court. She has instead made a complaint and the landlord has responded. As such the Ombudsman will investigate the resident’s concerns in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to her property, damp, and mould.
  3. The evidence suggests that issues remain ongoing with the resident’s property. The landlord explained in an internal email that the resident had said she would not allow access to the property until the Ombudsman’s determination. There is also evidence of access issues from around May 2024 onwards. Due to this, we shall only consider the period between January 2022 until 30 April 2024 in this investigation. We shall also not consider any repairs raised which the resident did not include within her initial complaint. We may refer to issues outside of this period for context.
  4. The resident has raised concerns about the effects of the situation on her health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.

Repairs to the resident’s property and handling of the request for a decant.

  1. The landlord runs 2 repair priorities according to its website, emergency, and non-urgent repairs. It aims to respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours and defines these as repairs that it must carry out immediately, for example, severe flooding that they cannot contain. With non-urgent repairs it says it will arrange an appoint at a day and time which suits residents. For non-urgent repairs, it says that the overall target for completion of these repairs is 12 days, and an average minimum level of acceptable performance is 15 days.
  2. The resident raised repairs with the landlord in relation to the stack pipe as early as January 2022. It completed several of the repairs on the same day. The evidence also shows that the landlord raised and completed works on 28 March 2022 to make the resident’s electrics safe.
  3. The landlord’s records also show that it raised a repair on 11 April 2022 in relation to the stack. It did not complete the works until 3 May 2022. This was a 10 working day delay and not in line with its policy. However, industry standards for landlords to complete repairs is usually between 20 to 28 days, as such the delay was not significantly outside of accepted industry standards. However, we would still expect the landlord to act in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord’s evidence then shows that the resident told it about her repair concerns with her property on 6 February 2023. It appropriately contacted its repairs team and found that the only job outstanding was in relation to a job to “investigate and trace a leak near a main communal doorway, coming through the main entrance and hallway.” As the rent remained outstanding, it tried to contact her on 5 April 2023 but was unsuccessful. It is unclear whether this was in relation to the arrears, repairs, or both.
  5. The resident then told the landlord again that she had several outstanding repair issues on 28 April 2023. It tried to contact her again but there was no response. The landlord acted appropriately initially by looking to clarify the outstanding repair issues with its repairs team. It however then failed in its approach, as when the resident raised the issue again, it should have looked to find what outstanding repairs there were to her property. This then led to her raising her complaint against the landlord.
  6. The landlord explained internally in an email on 13 June 2023 that the court allowed it 28 days to complete the repairs. It also said that it had not completed the repairs, and the court halted the proceedings on 18 August 2023. It said on 21 August 2023 that disrepair issues which remained outstanding were a blockage to the back surge, a job to the toilet, the communal stack pack, severe damp and mould in the bedrooms, bathroom, and front room, and finally a full electrical rewiring which it did not do in March 2023.
  7. The landlord’s records suggest that it then completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 22 August 2023. However, between 28 April 2023 and this date, the landlord has not shown that it took any action. This was a delay of over 3 months, and this was unreasonable, and not in keeping with its policy or standard industry practice. This was especially an issue given the level of concerns raised in her complaint. For example, she raised concerns with backed up waste in her bath and kitchen and bathroom sinks.
  8. The resident also raised concerns with “unsafe electrical wiring that did not pass the safety checks which could not be completed whilst she resided in the property.” Both concerns raised by the resident form potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). They raise health and safety concerns, and as such, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to promptly inspect and consider if there was a category 1 hazard and promptly complete works where there was.
  9. The landlord also said in internal emails on 21 August 2023 and 1 September 2023 that it did not complete a full electrical rewiring in March 2023. It should have completed a rewire in the property and it was overdue and classed as needed. She then explained that the matter remained outstanding on 13 February 2024. This means that between March 2023 and February 2024, the matter remained outstanding for around 11 months. Although the evidence suggests that it made the electrics safe in March 2023, this level of delay was unreasonable.
  10. The evidence then shows that the resident also raised concerns with her boiler on 10 October 2023 as it was leaking. The landlord appropriately attended on the same day to address her concerns. It then raised several repairs on 21 November 2023 in relation to the resident’s disrepair concerns. It raised works to the resident’s bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom. It is unclear why there was a delay of over 2 months in raising the necessary works.
  11. The landlord started the works on 15 January 2024 and the resident raised further concerns with her boiler on 28 January 2024. Its operative attended and found the concerns on the same day. It also appropriately provided her with temporary heaters the following day. The landlord’s records then show that it recalled the works on 7 February 2024. It tried to attend on 9 February 2024, but there was no access. It was however able to attend on 12 February 2024 and completed works. It completed further works to the boiler again on 20 February 2024.
  12. During this time also, the landlord raised works in relation to the resident’s electrics on 6 February 2024. It isolated the light in her kitchen after a leak from above on the same day. It also attended on 15 February 2024 to reinstate her kitchen light following the leak. Its records state it completed the job on 27 February 2024, but it completed the works prior to this date but could not provide details of exactly when. This raises concerns with its record keeping.
  13. The landlord also said internally that the resident was off work for 6 weeks, so she was available for the repairs. This was because its contractor did not provide a secure schedule of works. They had also not followed up with her as they had reportedly promised to. This was unreasonable, and further shows the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  14. The resident also told the landlord in her complaint in June 2023 that there was damage to her kitchen appliances. She also raised concerns with the landlord on 13 February 2024 about spending “more than double on electric heating in the interim”. It has not shown that it considered whether it may need to provide a refund of any additional heating costs, or if it needed to refer her to its insurer for the damage to her possessions and this was unreasonable.
  15. The landlord said it had resolved all works in the property on 20 February 2024. It then acknowledged in an email on 12 March 2024 that the works were poorly planned and executed by its contractors. It had inspected on 5 March 2024 and found the works completed by its contractor to be unsatisfactory and as such instructed them to rectify this as soon as possible. It believed it had almost completed the works as at 30 April 2024. The failure to ensure that there was a good plan in place to ensure the proper execution of the works in a logical and appropriate manner was unreasonable.
  16. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were some issues around access which led to concerns with the landlord’s handling of the matter. However, some of these were due to lack of proper communication with the resident. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its contractor attended at times without prior appointments, and this was unreasonable. We also acknowledge that the landlord completed works, but the landlord considered the workmanship by its contractor to be poor.
  17. However, as the works therefore remained outstanding whilst they rectified this, there was a delay of 12 months between 28 April 2022 and 30 April 2023, in the landlord completing the required repairs. Throughout the evidence, the landlord has not shown that it kept the resident appropriately informed around the reasons for the delay. There is also evidence of communication issues both internally within the organisation, and with its contractors. Its actions in managing the repairs were unreasonable.

Residents request for a decant

  1. The landlord acknowledged in an email in August 2023 that there were several outstanding jobs in the property. It said in an internal email on 1 September 2023 that the resident asked for a decant when its operatives attended to complete electrical works. It is unclear when this was as there is a gap between 28 March 2022 and 6 February 2024 in relation to electrical works in its records. She was unhappy with having trunking on the walls and ceilings for new cables. It said in its stage 2 response that it offered her a decant, but she refused this. It explained that this was a verbal conversation and as such there is no evidence of the offer.
  2. The landlord’s actions raise concerns with its record keeping. This is because it should have robust records of any such conversations to explain its position. It should make any such offer either formally in writing or follow it up in writing to the resident as soon as possible to explain details of the conversation. This would also provide her with an opportunity to dispute any details at a much earlier point in time.
  3. The resident disputed the landlord’s version of events, and she explained during a call with it on 30 April 2024 that it only offered her a weekend and asked her to “put down money”. The resident’s explanation suggests that the landlord did make an offer, however it is unclear when and if this was a decant for all of the necessary works, or a temporary move for some of the works. The landlord’s records on 3 December 2024 also show that it said its contractors had failed the resident multiple times flooding her flat and leaving her with no heat or hot water “for the winter the previous year after installing a bath”.
  4. From the evidence provided, she told it on 13 February 2024 during a phone call about several outstanding issues including a lack of heating for a period of 2 weeks despite its contractor’s attendance to fix the issue. She raised further concerns about the bath which it changed and had leaked through her ceiling, outstanding rewiring which made its redecorating redundant and drainage issues. She also raised concerns about the installation of the vents. She also said it had taken 15 hours for the flooring to dry. The resident had also previously reported concerns about an inability to access facilities such as her toilet.
  5. Given all the outstanding works to the property, we would have expected the landlord to show it completed a risk assessment. This would have shown that it considered the households health and safety. It may also have aided in informing its decision around whether it remained appropriate for the resident to remain in the property. This was especially important due to the reported vulnerabilities within the household. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this was inappropriate. The resident’s reports were also another opportunity for it to reevaluate its position and consider whether it remained appropriate for her to remain in the property.
  6. In summary, there were concerns with the landlord’s record keeping, communication, and delays in its handling of the necessary works. It has not shown that it completed a risk assessment at all around the required works or that it reevaluated its position in relation to a decant given the delays in completing the works, and further concerns raised by the resident. It did not show that it considered the vulnerabilities within the household and left her potentially exposed to multiple potential category 1 hazards under the HHSRS. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with its handling of the repairs.
  7. In its complaint response, it apologised and acknowledged that there were failings in its approach to the issue. It acknowledged that its contractors attending without prior appointments was inconvenient for the resident. It also said that the works had exceeded the timeframe of 3 weeks it provided to her. It said it was upholding her complaint but did not offer any compensation to the resident outside of the failings identified with its complaint handling.
  8. In line with the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman has identified that there was fault with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and as such, we shall consider the level of distress, delay, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor service. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord award the resident compensation for the failings identified in its handling of these concerns.

Damp and mould

  1. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what we expect from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. It also says that where a landlord may need to carry out significant works, it should consider whether it should move the resident from the property at an early stage. The landlord has not shown that it took such an approach, and this is unacceptable.
  2. The resident specifically told the landlord that there was damp and mould in her property on 10 June 2023. Its records say that it completed an inspection on 22 August 2023. This is over 2 months after she made it aware of her concerns around the matter and this was unreasonable. The landlord has also been unable to provide a copy of its surveyor’s report following the inspection, raising further concerns with its record keeping.
  3. The HHSRS considers damp and mould as a hazard. As such, this means that the landlord left the resident exposed to a potential hazard for longer than was necessary, and this was inappropriate.
  4. Following the inspection, the landlord raised a job on 11 September 2023 to install new fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. It also raised works for a mould wash to 2 bedrooms, hacking off and replastering rooms and fitting a vent in each room. This is a delay of 20 days in raising the necessary works around the identified concerns and this was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord did not complete these works until 16 November 2023. Its records suggest it tried its first appointment on 3 October 2023, 22 days after it raised the repair. It has provided no reason for the delay to the Ombudsman in its attendance. It explained that there was no access to the resident’s property because she was unaware of the appointment on 3 October 2023. The landlord’s contractor then tried to attend the following day, however the resident cancelled the job as she was again unaware of their attendance.
  6. The landlord’s failure to ensure its contractor raised a suitable appointment was unreasonable and raises concerns with its communication. It should have ensured that it prearranged any works with the resident at a mutually convenient time. It then tried to attend on 25 October 2023 but there was no access to the property.
  7. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 6 February 2025 that it raised further damp, and mould works in relation to the disrepair. It said that its contractor completed all works to the property on 20 February 2024. However, it found that they did not meet its standards, and it asked for them to complete further snagging workings. It is unclear whether this related to the damp and mould also. As such the Ombudsman finds that there was a delay between 10 June 2023 and 20 February 2024. This is a delay of over 8 months, and this was unreasonable.
  8. In summary, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Its contractors did not communicate with the resident and often attended without prior appointments. For a period, it potentially left the resident exposed to a potential hazard under the HHSRS. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
  9. The landlord has only awarded compensation in relation to its complaint handling failings. It has not considered whether redress was appropriate for its failings around its handling of the damp and mould. In line with its policy, the Ombudsman has considered the level of distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident based on the identified failings. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord runs a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident had raised an earlier complaint with the landlord about outstanding repairs to her property on 10 June 2023. Its response was therefore due on 23 June 2023. It responded to on 26 September 2023, 3 months outside of it’s the timeframes within its policy. When it did respond, it incorrectly said it could not deal with the matter as she had a legal disrepair case ongoing. Its actions around its complaint handling were inappropriate, not in keeping with its policy, and suggest poor investigation and understanding of the situation.
  3. The resident then raised a new complaint on 21 November 2023 about the outstanding repairs. Its response was therefore due on 5 December 2023. It did not provide a response to the resident. It also has not shown that it ever acknowledged her complaint or updated her on the delay. This led to her escalating her complaint on 2 February 2024.
  4. Therefore, there was a delay of 59 days between 5 December 2023 and 2 February 2024 in which the landlord did not provide a response. This was unreasonable and raises questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. Following the resident’s escalation to stage 2, a response remained outstanding until 30 April 2024. This means between 21 November 2023 and 30 April 2024, there was a delay of over 5 months, before the resident received a response to her complaint and this was unreasonable.
  6. As the resident had escalated her complaint on 2 February 2024 the landlord should have provided its response by 1 March 2024. This means that there was a delay of over a month in its stage 2 response. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 March 2024 and explained it had not received key information to enable it to complete its investigation at stage 2. It apologised for the continued delay and told her it would unavailable until 2 April 2024.
  7. The landlord however did not provide a date she would receive its response. Whilst appropriate it kept her informed, it did not provide her with any information around a response date. This was unreasonable and raises further questions with its complaint handling.
  8. When the landlord provided its complaint response, it said she raised her complaint in June 2023, and it responded at stage 1 in September 2023. Whilst it may have done so, this response was in relation to another complaint. It also incorrectly said that the resident had raised her complaint in February 2024, but this was her escalation request. Its actions show poor investigation into the resident’s complaint, and this was unreasonable. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
  9. This is especially troubling as the landlord said in the complaint response that it had provided inaccurate information in its response of September 2023. If the landlord had found that the issues in both the complaints were related, it should have explained this to the resident. It should have made it clear that it was combining both complaints and providing a final response in respect to both issues. It has not shown that it did, and this was inappropriate.
  10. In summary, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It provided incorrect information in its response to her first complaint in June 2023. It did not provide a stage 1 response and when it did respond, it appears it referenced the wrong complaint. There was a 5 month delay between the resident raising her stage 1 complaint and the landlord providing any response. There also a delay of over a month in providing the stage 2 response. It has not shown that it kept the resident updated. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
  11. The landlord offered the resident £300 in compensation around its complaint handling failings. This was in recognition of the delay in its stage 1 response, delay in escalation, and the inconvenience and uncertainty caused to the resident. Whilst this goes some way in address its failings, it does not go far enough. This is because the landlord did not recognise and consider the resident’s actual complaint from November 2023. As such we order that the landlord pay the resident further compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s property and handling of her request for a decant.
    2. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    3. The complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,400. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £300 and we break this down as follows:
      1. £600 for its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
      2. £400 for its handling of the damp and mould.
      3. £400 for its complaint handling failings (inclusive of its earlier offer of £300).
    3. The landlord must complete an inspection of the resident’s property, subject to the provision of access. It must identify any outstanding repairs and provide both the resident and Ombudsman with a schedule of works, with proposed dates of completion for any works found. It must also consider whether it is acceptable for the resident to remain in the property while it completes the repairs and provide an explanation of its findings to both the resident and Ombudsman.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.