London Borough of Hounslow (202509252)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first (top) floor.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. The formal complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. There were unreasonable delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. It offered redress but this was insufficient considering the failures identified, and the impact on the resident.
7. The landlord delayed in escalating the resident’s stage 2 complaint. She took time and trouble to get this escalated. It did not acknowledge its failures or offer any redress.

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.

8. The landlord must address damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
9. The resident says she has reported damp and mould for years. Our investigation has included events that happened 12 months before she made her complaint in March 2025. Events prior to March 2024 have been considered for context but are not assessed as part of this investigation.
10. When the resident reported damp and mould in early March 2024, the landlord appropriately arranged to inspect the following month. The resident has told us this inspection did not go ahead as she was in hospital. As this delay was not the result of any action by the landlord, this was not a failure.
11. The landlord inspected the property in May 2024 and recommended works to treat the mould. While appropriate that it did this, there is no evidence it considered what was causing the mould. It is vital that landlords seek to identify the underlying cause of damp and mould and resolve this, as well as treating the problem. Resolving the underlying cause will ensure a long-term resolution.
12. There is no evidence the landlord reached any conclusions about the cause of the damp and mould at any of its 4 inspections in May and December 2024 or April 2025. This was despite the resident repeatedly saying she believed it was caused by gutter defects. This was a failure that contributed to the overall delay in the landlord resolving the issues.
13. The works recommended in May 2024 were not progressed until after the resident took time and effort to chase them up 6 months later, on 18 November 2024. The landlord then completed a second inspection in December 2024. It subsequently arranged to complete the works on 16 January 2025, 8 months after the resident’s first report. This was significantly over the landlord’s 20 working day committed timescale for routine repairs, set out in its repairs policy.
14. In November 2024 the resident told the landlord her health was being negatively affected by the mould. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will consider increasing the priority of repairs where a resident’s health may be affected. There is no evidence the landlord did so here, which was a missed opportunity. It was a further 2 months before it completed works to remove the mould. This was disappointing for the resident and made her feel it did not care about the impact on her health.
15. The landlord attended on 16 January 2025 to remove and treat mould in multiple rooms. It noted the resident declined to have works done in the kitchen that day and asked to rebook the living room work for another day. The resident disputed this and said she did not decline any works or ask to rebook. She said the reason the works did not go ahead was because the landlord ran out of time and had not properly scheduled the works. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on the operative’s notes when assessing its handling of the matter. We appreciate the resident disputes this but, while frustrating for her, we cannot comment further on what actually happened during the visit.
16. The landlord booked to reattend on 4 March 2025 to complete the outstanding works. This did not go ahead due to staff sickness. While cancellations are frustrating, these can occur as staff sickness is unavoidable. Where this happens, the landlord should ensure it has a process in place for notifying residents about cancellations at the earliest opportunity to minimise inconvenience. The resident said she was not told about the cancellation and, when she called, the landlord did not know what was happening. This was frustrating for her and the landlord subsequently acknowledged that this was a failure in its stage 1 response.
17. The landlord booked to reattend on 6 March 2025, but there is no record of it notifying the resident until the day of the appointment. The landlord sent a text message to her at 12:08pm saying it would attend between 12:07pm and 3:59pm. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will give at least 24 hours’ notice if it needs access. The landlord did not do that here and gave the resident insufficient notice of the appointment.
18. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that this had been recorded as a no access. However, as the landlord did not give the proper notice, it was unreasonable to expect the resident to be available. Therefore, it was unfair of the landlord to blame her for not giving access.
19. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord agreed to reinspect the property and this went ahead on 11 April 2025. The note of the inspection acknowledged the damp and mould kept coming back and said a surveyor was needed. Considering the issues had been ongoing for more than a year, the landlord should have arranged for a surveyor to inspect in the first instance. Its failure to do so meant the resident had to give access for a fourth inspection on 22 April 2025. This was inconvenient for her as she had already taken time of work for a number of appointments, and had lost money because of this.
20. The landlord has not provided a record of the inspection on 22 April 2025. This means we do not know what was assessed, or any conclusions reached. It is important the landlord keeps detailed records of all inspections so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. It is not clear if the lack of records is because there are none, or they were simply not provided to us. Regardless, this is a failure.
21. The resident raised concerns about this inspection and said the surveyor tried to blame her for the mould. It is reasonable that landlords give residents advice about how they can reduce or resolve damp and mould issues. However, it is essential that this is done sensitively and not in a way that infers blame. While we have not seen a record of the inspection, it is concerning that the resident was left feeling she was being blamed for the mould.
22. At the inspection on 11 April 2025, the landlord identified replastering works were needed. A job was raised on 25 April 2025 and the landlord attended on 6 May 2025, when it recorded no access. The resident said she was not aware of this appointment and we have seen no evidence that the landlord notified her in advance. This was inconsiderate and frustrating for the resident.
23. The landlord completed the plastering works over 3 visits between 23 May and 10 June 2025. It was frustrating for the resident that multiple visits were needed. However, as drying time was required following replastering and during the decorating process, this was reasonable. The landlord’s repair policy says plasterwork will be treated as routine repairs and completed in 20 working days. In this case, the landlord completed the works in 31 working days.
24. When the resident raised her complaint, she included concerns about broken and overflowing guttering. She also told the landlord during the inspection on 11 April 2025 that she believed this was the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord inspected the guttering on 9 May 2025 and completed repairs on 19 August 2025.
25. The landlord’s repairs policy says gutter repairs will be treated as routine repairs, which it commits to complete in 20 working days. As the landlord needed to put up scaffolding to complete these works, it was reasonable that this took slightly longer. However, the repair was completed 117 working days after the resident first raised her concerns. This was an unreasonable delay, and was particularly concerning given the potential links to the damp and mould and the resident’s concerns about her health.
26. The landlord was originally booked to complete the gutter repairs on 8 August 2025 but had to change this appointment on the day. From the evidence provided, it is not clear why, so we cannot assess whether this was reasonable. It is important that landlords record the reasons why any appointment needs to be changed for future consideration.
27. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep residents informed about what is happening with their repairs to minimise them having to chase for updates. The landlord did not consistently do that. It was often only in response to the resident chasing that action was taken or updates provided. This included not giving adequate notice of visits and, at times, cancelling visits with little or no notice. This meant the resident took time and trouble to be kept updated, when the landlord should have done this proactively. 
28. The resident has confirmed all works are completed. She said the landlord had to reattend in September 2025 to redo some that had not been done properly. This meant the works took 18 months to complete since March 2024. This was an unreasonable and avoidable delay that amounts to maladministration.
29. The resident has told us the works appear to have resolved the damp and mould. However, as the weather is now turning colder, she is keeping an eye on things to make sure it does not return. Our spotlight report on damp and mould says it is best practice for landlords to proactively follow up with residents after works are completed to ensure these have successfully resolved the issues. Therefore, we order the landlord to reinspect the property in January 2026 to check if the damp and mould has returned. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of this and any works it will do, with timescales for these to be completed.
30. During this 18 month period, the resident told the landlord on at least 6 occasions that the situation was impacting her health and/or that she was vulnerable. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord considered this as part of its response. This amounts to maladministration.
31. As part of its evidence submission for our investigation, the landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It is concerning that the landlord has failed to record this information, and vital that it does, so it can consider it in future interactions with the resident. We order the landlord to contact the resident and confirm details of all vulnerabilities affecting her and her family and centrally record these. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming this has been done.
32. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the matter, apologised and offered a total of £200 compensation. The resident has asked for compensation for loss of earnings as she had to take time off work for a number of appointments, some of which were not kept by the landlord. The landlord has told us it does not have a compensation policy as it follows our guidance on financial redress.
33. Our remedies guidance says we will not generally pay compensation to reimburse a resident for time off work. Their tenancy agreement requires them to give access for repairs to be carried out and it would not be fair or reasonable for us to order the landlord to pay compensation for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, we will consider if it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation for inconvenience caused where repair appointments are repeatedly missed, or fail to resolve the issue. Therefore, we have considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
34. In consultation with our remedies guidance, we find that the redress offered was not proportionate. Therefore, there was maladministration by the landlord. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay her £600 compensation (inclusive of the £200 already offered). This reflects the failures which adversely affected her, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. This is because of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she incurred as a result of the landlord’s failures.
35. The resident has told us she wants the landlord to clear her £2,500 rent arrears, instead of paying compensation. Our compensation awards are based on our remedies guidance and this does not support an award of £2,500 in the circumstances. As we have ordered the landlord to pay some compensation, it should confirm if the resident wants this paid to her rent account or to her directly.
36. The resident has told us she has incurred costs replacing damaged items including furniture, carpets and personal belongings. Our remedies guidance says we will not award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. Therefore, we would generally expect landlords to tell residents how they can make an insurance claim for any damaged items.
37. It appears the resident first told the landlord there had been damage to her belongings in reply to the stage 2 response, on 30 May 2025. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not tell her how to make a claim of this nature previously. We order the landlord to write to the resident informing her how she can make a claim for any damaged items on its insurance, including what evidence she will need to provide.

38. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 12 March 2025, 6 working days after the complaint was made. This was just over the 5 working day timescale in the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord sent the stage 1 response 9 working days later, in line with the 10 working day timescale in its policy.
39. The landlord’s complaints policy says, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, the complaint can be progressed to stage 2. The resident replied to the stage 1 response the same day, expressing her dissatisfaction with it. While she did not expressly ask to escalate the complaint, the landlord should have done so at that point. Instead, the resident spent time and effort asking for her complaint to be escalated on at least 2 further occasions in April 2025.
40. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 April 2025, 22 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. This was over the 5 working day timescale in the complaints policy. The landlord sent the stage 2 response 22 working days later, slightly over the 20 working day timescale in its policy.
41. In reply to the stage 2 response, the resident said she was not expecting it as the repair works had not been finished. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must respond to a complaint when the answer is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord sent the complaint response at that point and shows it was mindful of its target timescales.
42. The Code also says any outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates sent to the resident. That did not consistently happen here. Where a landlord answers a complaint before works are completed, it can review the matter on completion of the works to consider if further or additional redress should be offered. There is no evidence the landlord did that, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. 
43. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not identify failure in its complaint handling or offer any redress during the complaint process. This is disappointing and suggests the landlord was not committed to putting things right for the resident. We order the landlord to apologise and pay her £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge this or put things right.

Learning

44. The landlord should seek to resolve the underlying cause of damp and mould, as well as arranging treatment. This should help to resolve the problems in the long-term.
45. The landlord should consider increasing the priority of repairs where there is an impact on the resident’s health, in accordance with the commitment in its repairs policy.
46. The landlord should escalate complaints to stage 2 when residents express dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, even if they do not expressly ask for this.
47. The landlord rightly responded to the complaint when the answer was known, not when all repair works were completed to resolve the issues, in line with the Code.
48. The landlord can consider if further redress is needed after the stage 2 response has been sent, where works to resolve the issues continue and there are further delays.
49. The landlord should assess its handling of a complaint and offer redress where there are failures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

50. The landlord should keep detailed records of all inspections and provide these to us as part of evidence submissions for investigations.
51. If repair appointments need to be changed or cancelled at short notice, the landlord should record the reason for review and consideration at a later date.
52. Where a resident tells the landlord about medical issues or vulnerabilities, it should record this information so it can consider this as part of its future interactions with them.

Communication

53. The landlord should have a process for notifying residents about cancelled contractor appointments at the earliest opportunity.
54. The landlord should tell residents in advance about repair appointments, giving at least 24 hours’ notice, where possible.
55. The landlord should advise residents on how to reduce and resolve damp and mould. This should be done sensitively and not infer any blame on the resident.
56. The landlord should keep residents updated about the progress of their repairs. This should be done proactively and not rely on residents regularly chasing for updates.