London Borough of Hackney (202429912)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429912

London Borough of Hackney

16 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s transfer application and banding.
2. Overcrowding in the resident’s property.
3. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
4. The resident’s request for a temporary move.
5. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom flat in a 7 floor building. He lives in the property with his partner and children. The tenancy started in July 2013.
The resident asked the landlord on 11 December 2023 for a visit to inspect and action to remedy the underlying cause of damp and black mould across the living room and bedroom wall where his 2 children and their mother slept. He said two of the property’s occupants were particularly vulnerable to the impact of damp and mould. He told the landlord the presence of black mould showed the room was not habitable, was a statutory nuisance, and a safety hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The resident said it likely contributed to various recurring respiratory and chest illnesses sustained by the occupants of the rooms. Later that month one of his children was hospitalised with a chest infection and pneumonia. He raised a complaint on 2 January 2024 and said it did not take damp and mould seriously like it claimed. He said that there was no urgency in dealing with damp, mould, inspections, and repair requests. He also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, timeframes, following its own policies, and dealing with vulnerable children’s health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 January 2024. It said that it advised the resident in October 2023 after raising similar issues that the property did not need any follow on work. He then raised the issue about mould in his property in December 2023. It raised a work order for a painter to attend on 2 January 2024, but there was no access given. The landlord:
1. Said he contacted on 2 January 2024, and it raised a new work order for a surveyor to attend as he reported both damp and mould throughout the property.
2. Said it attended on 11 January 2024 and said it would raise the necessary follow on works. The surveyor would communicate directly with him about the next steps.
3. Provided him with the email address of the Area Surveying Manager and asked that he contacted them to stay updated on any follow on actions.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint on 7 February 2024. He said he was disappointed the matter remained unresolved and its lack of urgent action to rectify the problem and the underlying cause. He said its surveyors acknowledged in writing that there was severe mould growth on the bedroom and living room wall and works to remedy the situation could not begin until someone removed items, shelves, and fixtures from the walls. It is unclear whether the surveyors said the landlord or resident should remove the items. He said due to overcrowding, it needed to first decant occupants of the room to create space.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 March 2024. It said it found no fault with its handling of the damp and mould, and its decision not to decant the resident, but found a failing in its complaint handling. It explained the history of the issue between 18 October 2023 and March 2024. It awarded the resident compensation of £90 for its complaint handling failing. It broke this down as, £50 to reflect the level of failing in the case, and £40 for its complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied and continued to raise his concerns. The landlord reiterated its position on 2 July 2024 to the resident. It arranged for another surveyor’s visit in September 2024 and for works to take place, however the resident declined access as he said he needed a decant. He brought his complaint to us on 5 November 2024 and also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of his transfer application and overcrowding. He told us that the outcomes he wanted were for the landlord to complete the repairs, decant him and his family while it completed the repairs, move him permanently, compensate him.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs the complaints which we can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the following issues are outside of our jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s transfer application and banding.
2. Overcrowding in the resident’s property.
Paragraph 41.d. of the scheme says that we cannot consider matters in respect of a Local Housing Authority which do not relate to the management or provision of social housing. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consider applications for allocation under their allocation policy. They also have a responsibility to consider concerns around overcrowding under their policies. This is not in connection with its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing and therefore such issues are not matters for the Housing Ombudsman.
These are matters which fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) once they have exhausted the Council’s complaints process.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on both his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions have had an effect on a person’s health. These are matters that require expert consideration and the courts can consider and decide on such issues. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on these matters.
The resident said he would like the landlord to rehouse him to resolve his complaint. It is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s powers to order a landlord to rehouse a person. However, we can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s concerns and whether it has followed fair process in considering their complaint.

Damp and mould in the resident’s property

Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 place an obligation on a landlord to ensure that a dwelling is free from hazards. The HHSRS sees damp and mould as examples of such hazards and regards them as a category 1 or 2 hazard depending on the severity.
We understand that the resident had a number of personal belongings in the property, and we also acknowledge that the landlord appropriately raised the necessary works on many occasions. It could not obtain access to the property on some occasions as the resident believed a decant was necessary. This was most recently in September 2024. However, the landlord could have explored other options with the resident to ensure that the necessary works were completed.
A usual term in most tenancy agreements is that the resident must provide the landlord with necessary access to allow it to complete repairs. In this instance, it would have been a reasonable approach for the landlord to look to rely on such a term to enforce access to the property and allow it to resolve the issue. This is especially after making many attempts to schedule appointments and the resident denying entry.
The resident further raised concerns with us about his belief that the landlord thought he should take items down and dismantle the shelving on the walls. He explained that he could not afford the costs of a storage unit while the landlord completed the works. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted its housing management team around assisting the resident, however it is unclear what this entailed. However, the resident regularly refused to remove the items from the property, and this led to delays in the landlord’s handling of the issue.
We appreciate this and acknowledge that removal of personal belongings is usually a resident’s responsibility, however it was not reasonable for the landlord to leave the matter unattended to as a result. The resident frequently explained that he did not have the room to place the items once removed. From the evidence provided it is not clear that the landlord explored other options with the resident to allow them to complete the works.
The landlord’s policies, handbooks and guides provide several situations in which it will recharge resident’s for completing works. Its policies and procedures are however silent around recharging residents on such matters. Its repairs guide explains that while it is a resident’s responsibility to move items to allow access to areas it needs to work on, residents should tell it if they need help with this. From the evidence, the resident repeatedly told the landlord he could not move the items. As such it would have been reasonable for it to take the necessary actions to try to assist the resident.
This could have been for example, considering paying for the removal of the items, and potentially agreeing to charging the resident back any costs incurred in order to resolve the issue promptly. This could have been a reasonable, customer and solution focused approach for the landlord to explore. It has not demonstrated that it considered any alternative approaches to allow it to complete the works and this was inappropriate.
Based on the evidence provided, the landlord was also aware that the resident believed the damp and mould contributed to ill health within his family. He provided it with medical evidence to this effect, and he told it that his child was hospitalised on two occasions between December 2023 and October 2024 due to chest infections, and respiratory disease. He also told it that the doctor had now diagnosed his child with asthma.

We would have expected the landlord to take a customer focused approach and consider the vulnerabilities in the household when considering its approach. For example, we would have expected it to complete a risk assessment and appropriate action plan around the situation and the vulnerabilities in the household. This would have allowed the landlord to cater its approach to the situation and consider if it needed to take an alternative approach to the norm in dealing with the issue. For example, helping the resident with the clearance of the items. It has not shown that it did, and this was inappropriate.

This is especially important as it is generally accepted that damp and mould are especially harmful to children under the age of 14. Also, as explained they are potential category 1 or 2 hazards, so the landlord had a responsibility to ensure it remedied them in a prompt manner. The resident explained to us in July 2025 that the issue remains outstanding. The delay in taking necessary action between December 2023 and the time of writing this report was unreasonable. This is a total of over 18 months.
We do acknowledge that there were extenuating circumstances which contributed to this delay. However, the landlord’s ultimate responsibility in the situation was to complete the repair and resolve the damp and mould and it has not done so. Based on this, we find that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it uses the policy to reinforce the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes. It uses 4 tiers in awarding its compensation. The policy also says that it will consider the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, the seriousness of any other unfair impact, which either mitigated or contributed to distress, inconvenience, or unfair impact. it will consider the impact on the resident’s living arrangements.

The resident’s request for a temporary move

The resident told the landlord that many of its surveyors had explained that it was impossible for the works to go ahead with the items in the property. He said that they told him he needed a temporary move for the works to proceed, but a senior member of staff overruled them and said he did not need a temporary move, and he simply needed to move his items.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord discussed the issue internally. It received advice from its contractors who found that the works would take 1 day to complete once the resident removed the items from the property. It appropriately relied on the advice of its contractors and surveyors in the situation to reach its decision that he did not need a temporary move.
The resident disputed this and told us during a telephone call in June 2025 that the landlord’s operatives told him it would take 2 days to complete the works. From the information provided to us, we have seen no evidence of this.
We appreciate that the resident had raised concerns around vulnerabilities to the mould. However, in such scenarios, where the landlord has scoped that works will take a minimal amount of time, we do not consider it reasonable for a landlord to temporarily move a resident. This is because such action may lead to further delays in completing works due to sourcing a suitable property. Based on this we find that there was no maladministration.

The complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions, affecting a resident. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint and 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint at stage 2. It says where possible, it must send responses when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it has completed the outstanding actions needed to address the issue.
The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation may be appropriate if there is a delay in responding to a complaint without proper communication or agreement of an extension with the resident in line with its complaints policy. It says compensation may also be due if there is a delay escalating the complaint to stage 2, it will award £20 per week.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were failings in its approach around handling the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with its stage 2 response within agreed timescales. To put things right it awarded the resident compensation of £90 in line with its compensation policy. Whilst appropriate that it acknowledged that there was a failing in its approach, there were further issues it did not recognise in its handling of the complaint.
Following the stage 1 response on 19 January 2024, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He also raised concerns that it included false information around the appointment on 2 January 2024. The landlord then did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process until he wrote to it again on 7 February 2024. This means that it failed to recognise the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 19 January 2024 as an escalation of his complaint as he remained dissatisfied. This led to a 14 working day delay in acknowledging the complaint. Its actions were not in line with its policy.
The landlord also did not address all of the resident’s concerns. In the stage 1 complaint, the resident raised concerns around the landlord following its policies and procedures. He also raised concerns around its consideration of vulnerabilities and other matters. The landlord did not respond to these issues in either of its responses. It also did not respond at stage 2 to the resident’s comment around it providing incorrect information around the appointment on 2 January 2024. This was unreasonable.
Based on this, we find that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, we order that it pay the resident added compensation of £100 to put things right.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation into the landlord in May 2025. The investigation found that similar to the findings of this case, there was a lack of risk management across all areas investigated. It highlighted a lack of staff training around safeguarding and vulnerability. The landlord had stated that it dealt with residents on a case by case basis. The report pointed out the risks of inconsistency with such an approach and this report has highlighted this further.
The special investigation also found that in 47% of cases, it did not formally acknowledge or escalate complaints when the residents requested, and there were delays with 57% of stage 2 complaints.
The Ombudsman made recommendations as part of the investigation. These included the landlord implementing new systems to resolve the issues surrounding gaps in data and vulnerabilities. The landlord has committed to provide an update on this by 1 September 2025. As such, we will make no orders in relation to the landlord’s internal processes. The landlord should reflect on the failures in this case and what learning it can take to help inform any future improvements.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the following issues are outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman:
1. Resident’s transfer application and banding.
2. Overcrowding in the resident’s property.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a temporary move.
3. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £490. This is inclusive of its offer of £90 for its complaint handling. If it has already paid this to the resident, the landlord should subtract it from the total and the outstanding amount is £400. We break this down as:
  1. £300 for its handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  2. £100 for its handling of the complaint.
3. Should the matter remain outstanding, the landlord must complete an inspection/survey to identify where there is damp and/ or mould within the property and the actions to resolve this. It should also prepare a schedule of any necessary works and timescales for completion.
4. It should discuss with the resident if there is any assistance it can provide him with removing the items on the wall and storing them. If its aim is to recharge the resident for storage, it must explain this in writing to him.
5. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.