London Borough of Havering Council (202434804)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434804

London Borough of Havering Council

30 September 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 concerns in respect to parking.
2. The resident’s damp and mould reports.
3. The resident’s concerns in respect to the communal stairwells.
4. The resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water.
5. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has 2 children, including a 5-year-old who has a heart condition and asthma.
The resident raised a complaint on 3 November 2024.
1. She complained about the use of parking spaces outside her flat by another property, residents in surrounding streets and a nearby GP surgery.
2. She complained that the landlord had not rectified the damp and mould at her property.
3. She said that works the landlord had done to open up the side of the building with metal railings allowed the weather to come into the main area, and complained about how it had responded to her concerns that the communal flooring was a safety hazard.
4. She complained that she had not had heating and hot water since 1 November 2024.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 12 November 2024.
1. It said a housing officer would contact the resident, but it said that if cars were not parked illegally it could not enforce parking. It advised her to look into applying for a disabled parking space.
2. It said that the repairs team believed the property to be defect free but a roof inspection had been requested due to a suspected fault at the time of the complaint. It said that the repairs team had also offered advice on moisture reduction and assistance in the form of mould washes.
3. It apologised for a delay in fitting solid panels to stairs by the major works team. It said the team was in the process of installing new windows and residents would be communicated to about this.
4. It noted that the resident said she felt belittled by staff. It said that staff involved were some of its most experienced surveyors and apologised that the resident felt this, as this was not intended.
5. It summarised events for the heating and hot water repair. It noted that its contractor had responded to the out of hours calls and also offered heaters, but said this part of the complaint was partly upheld.
The resident said she was dissatisfied with the decision the same day. She said use of the parking went against a sign that said it was residential parking. She disputed the property was defect free as there were unresolved external issues. She said the stairwell and the open side of the building was a health and safety hazard. She confirmed the heating and hot water had been repaired, but disputed the landlord’s account and said the service she had received had been unacceptable.
The landlord provided its final response on 9 December 2024. It said it had done a pilot installation of glazing and the contractor had now been instructed to install it to all front walkway areas, which was likely to be after Christmas. It apologised for some incorrect information in its previous response but said it was satisfied that all other issues were adequately addressed.
The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman the same day. She said that while her landlord had contacted her and taken responsibility for some aspects of her complaint, it had done nothing to change the issues and ignored our orders in previous cases. She raised dissatisfaction that it had not replaced the flooring and noted that she and her daughter had now both slipped on the stairs. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. She said that the mould in the property was affecting her daughter’s asthma and heart murmur. She noted that it had done a mould wash but said that this would only work for so long and no decorating was possible.
The landlord’s contractor attended for a previously arranged multi-stage mould treatment on a couple of occasions, after which it raised various repairs in late February 2025. This included repairs to hack off blown plaster, skim and paint. The resident recently confirms that a bedroom wall had been treated and replastered, but says various works including ones linked to the mould had still not been done.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to some additional repairs issues in correspondence to the Ombudsman. Our Scheme, which sets out how we investigate complaints, says we normally only investigate complaints which have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation therefore focuses on the issues that she raised in her complaint and that the landlord responded to. She has the option to contact the landlord about any additional issues and ask it to raise a complaint about these.

The resident’s concerns in respect to parking

The resident complained about the use of parking spaces outside her flat by another property, residents in surrounding streets and a nearby GP surgery. She said this affected her ability to park near her flat, which she and her daughter required due to health issues.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it would discuss issues with the resident. However, it initially said that it would be hard to enforce parking if this was not illegal and advised her to look into applying for a disabled parking space.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response. She noted that a sign said it was residential parking. She said use of the parking by the GP surgery and for parking “for sale” cars was not residential. The landlord discussed this with her shortly after. It internally noted that while other staff had said nothing could be done, it planned to internally discuss the issue further and check if resident-only permit signage was properly displayed in the area.
The landlord’s December 2024 stage 2 response said it was satisfied that issues including the parking were adequately addressed.
In April 2025, the landlord updated the resident that issues she had recently raised may relate to a car business, which senior staff had confirmed qualified as antisocial behaviour, and it said it was liaising with an enforcement team.
In August 2025, the landlord told the Ombudsman that it had discussed concerns related to a car business with an alleged perpetrator. It says it also commenced site visits in July 2025, to record vehicle registrations in the vicinity, get a clear picture of car park usage, and identify if there were any ongoing breaches or misuse of space.
The landlord was reasonable to say that it could not enforce non-illegal parking and to advise the resident to look into a disabled space. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not give her a specific right to park, and an application for a disabled space would allow appropriate consideration of any medical needs she has for a space.
However, the landlord’s complaint responses did not address all the resident’s concerns. It would have been expected to investigate if the parking was resident-only and if this was being breached. It would have also been expected to investigate parked “for sale” cars. The resident’s tenancy agreement obligate her not to run businesses likely to cause nuisance and annoyance to others, including car repair and maintenance. The landlord would have been expected to investigate if any residents were breaching similar terms in their own contracts.
The landlord informs the Ombudsman that it started to take more substantive action about a car business from April 2025. It also says it commenced visits to get a clearer idea of car usage from around July 2025. This shows it is now taking more appropriate action. However, the landlord would have been expected to consider some of this action earlier. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about parking.

The resident’s damp and mould reports

The landlord has previously arranged for an independent specialist to investigate the resident’s reports and raised repairs, which have included mould treatment, upgrade of extractor fans, and installation of thermal boarding. In July 2021, the Ombudsman determined a previous complaint. This found service failure and recommended the landlord to re-offer any outstanding mould works, which it did.
After 2021, it is not evident that the landlord received reports about mould until 12 March 2024, and a surveyor inspected on 19 March 2024. They identified mould at the property and raised repairs for a multi-stage mould treatment and a kitchen extractor fan pull cord.
From the landlord’s records and the resident’s account, the pull cord repair was attended in late April 2024, where an operative said the pull cord could not be repaired. The following month, the landlord’s contractor attended for the mould treatment and treated mould in the kitchen, the living room and a bedroom. The resident postponed further mould treatment until October when mould was worse.
The landlord raised a repair on 8 July 2024 for “pull cord to extractor fan is faulty please repair…NB has said tenant must have different fan fitted as no longer use Airtech.” Following this, the resident raised dissatisfaction on 22 July 2024 that an operative had attended to repair the cord when they had already said this was beyond repair. She also raised concern that the new fan they intended to install was not in line with the type the landlord recommended. The landlord told the resident that it would arrange for a new fan to be installed in late August or early September 2024 in line with her availability.
On 18 September 2024, the resident reported that she had tried to book the fan works and was also waiting for the October treatment to be booked. Following this, the landlord raised another repair for the fan and a multi-stage mould treatment. Its records report that the fan works were completed on 28 October 2024.
The same day, the contractor attended to start the multi-stage mould treatment. They found no mould but identified there was signs of condensation and water ingress from the flat roof into a bedroom. The contractor inspected for this on 5 November 2024 and cleared out a gully that may have caused water to stand on the flat roof, then treated mould in the living room and a bedroom on 26 November 2024.
The contractor attended again and treated bedroom mould at a January 2025 visit, then reported no mould present at a mid-February 2025 visit. Following this, the landlord raised various repairs in late February 2025, which included repairs to hack off blown plaster, skim and paint.
The resident complained that historical actions had not resolved an ongoing battle she had with damp and mould and raised concerns about the impact on her asthmatic daughter. The landlord shows that it generally responded reasonably about damp and mould issues in the complaint timeframe from March to December 2024 which is our main focus.
The landlord’s records show it had not received any reports about damp and mould for some time before March 2024. It provided advice, did multi-stage mould treatments, and completed works in line with the resident’s availability around the time she raised concerns about the impact of mould on her child. It addressed short-term structural issues in a timely way and cleared a gully in November 2024 potentially related to damp issues observed around then. It acknowledges there are issues with cold-bridging due to the building’s age and structure, which it says it is developing longer term plans for. Its complaint response considered recent service and detailed how it was doing multi-stage mould treatment and doing a follow up visit for the current water ingress issue. It is evident these were appropriately progressed.
However, the repair for the kitchen extractor fan pull cord took the landlord from late March 2024 to late October 2024 to complete. This was around 7 months and after multiple raised repairs and visits. It is not evident that this had a significant impact, but this was an unreasonable length of time for the resident not to have a fully functioning fan, and she was clearly caused some frustration and time and trouble.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident’s household includes a child with asthma and a heart condition, but repairs raised for damp and mould do not refer to these. The landlord’s contractor has commented that they are unaware of the household vulnerability and that it is the landlord’s responsibility to make them aware. The landlord could have shown it had a clearer regard for these vulnerabilities.
The above leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about damp and mould.

The resident’s concerns in respect to the communal stairwells

The resident has previously raised issues with communal areas and in late February 2024, the Ombudsman determined a previous complaint about her reports of a fall on communal stairs. This found maladministration and ordered the landlord to inspect communal flooring and raise any appropriate repairs.
In July 2024, the landlord inspected with the resident. It noted she said that as communal flooring was indoor not outside flooring, and some of the stair flooring was lifting at the edges, it should be replaced. It also noted that she said that after some major works to replace communal windows with railings and mesh, the landing and stairs were open to elements and a slip hazard when it rained.
The evidence shows that the landlord said the flooring would not be replaced and raised a flooring repair. The landlord also said that it was arranging a quote to reinstall glazing in the communal area. The evidence shows that its major works team subsequently decided to install glazing at another block as a pilot, to check this resolved communal areas being impacted by weather.
The landlord completed some repairs on 16 August 2024 to stick down the flooring on the stairs. On 18 September 2024, the resident reported that her child had tripped on a raised bit of vinyl on the stairs and grazed their knee. She noted this was minor but raised dissatisfaction that the issue had not been satisfactorily resolved. The same day, the landlord raised a repair for “vinyl on the stairs needs sticking down,” and an operative attended on 30 September 2024 and re-stuck back down a corner of vinyl flooring on the stairs.
The resident complained on 3 November 2024 about the issues. The landlord initially responded to say it was installing new windows and to apologise for the delay. Its December 2024 stage 2 response then clarified it had done a pilot installation of glazing to a walkway and the contractor had been instructed to install this to all front walkway areas, likely after Christmas. The landlord subsequently updated the resident in February 2025 that it was installing glazing in the stairwell areas that month.
The resident confirms the landlord installed glazing in the communal area but says partial openings means rain can still get in. She says the flooring lifts again after the landlord’s contractors attend and stick corners down, due to dirt and their age. She notes that part of the building is open and contends that the vinyl is unsuitable for this as it is indoor vinyl not outdoor vinyl.
The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to say if the landlord should do major improvements such as renew flooring, say there should be a different type of flooring in the communal area, or say that the communal areas should be completely closed to the elements. However, we can assess how the landlord has handled concerns from the resident about these issues.
The evidence shows that the landlord has considered the resident’s concerns about communal areas being a slip hazard due to being open to the elements. It did a pilot glazing installation at another block to check this did not worsen the situation, then installed glazing at the resident’s block. This was in February 2025, 7 months after the resident raised the concerns in July 2024, which is reasonably timely in the circumstances. If the resident continues to have concerns after the installation of the glazing, she has the option to raise these to the landlord.
The evidence shows that the landlord has considered the resident’s concerns about communal flooring. The resident has discussed the flooring with surveyors and after orders in a previous determination, it was also referred to the major works team to consider. The resident has been told that the flooring is not considered to require replacement, and the Ombudsman sees no professional opinions to support hers that the flooring is unsuitable or should be replaced. The landlord is evidently maintaining the flooring through its responsive repairs service, and this initially seems reasonable given the frequency of repairs reports about the flooring.
The landlord raised 2 repairs in the complaint timeframe for the flooring lifting, which seems proportionate to the number of reports the resident made. The landlord completed repairs on 16 August 2024 after the site visit in early July 2024. The landlord then completed repairs on 30 September 2024 after the resident’s report on 18 September 2024. These show that the landlord has been responsive to any reports about the flooring, and the timeframes were in line with the priorities of the repairs that the landlord raised.
Given the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response about the communal stairwells concerns.
However, it is noted that the repairs raised for lifted flooring have been ‘routine,’ with a target timeframe of 28 working days, rather than ‘urgent’ with a target timeframe of 3 working days. While this has not resulted in a significant impact, this does not seem reasonable, given the issue may be a health and safety risk.
The Ombudsman has therefore recommended the landlord to review if future repairs for the lifted flooring should be raised with a higher priority. We have also recommended that the landlord review the communal flooring and frequency of reports about it to confirm it is satisfied it does not require replacement.

The resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water

The evidence shows that the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water on Friday 1 November 2024 out of hours. The same evening, the landlord’s contractor attended and reported that a new pressure sensor was needed. They noted that this was ordered and that they managed to trick the pressure sensor into allowing the boiler to run.
The resident contacted the landlord again on Sunday 3 November 2024 to report loss of heating and hot water again and a gas leak. The landlord’s contractor and the gas supplier attended the same day. They found no leaks, noted that nothing could be done until the pressure sensor was replaced, and offered the resident temporary heats which she refused. The landlord’s contractor subsequently fitted a new pressure sensor in the evening of Monday 4 November 2024.
The resident complained on 3 November 2024. She said that she currently lacked heating and hot water and that this was caused by the 1 November 2024 operative’s actions. She raised dissatisfaction that they had not had any parts or given her a timeframe for when the new part would be fitted. She said that she had purchased an electric heater due to not being offered one. She raised concerns about the impact on her vulnerable child. The landlord’s response subsequently noted that it had responded to the reports and offered heaters.
The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about the length of time she was without heating and hot water. However, our role is to consider if the landlord responded reasonably in line with its obligations. It is obligated under its policy to respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours. In addition, its policy and the Right to Repair regulations confirm it is obligated to make safe or repair issues with heating and hot water in 1 working day.
The evidence shows that the landlord reasonably met its obligations. It attended out of hours on Friday 1 November 2024, where it identified that a pressure sensor part was required to complete any repair. It then fitted the replacement pressure sensor part and completed the repair around 6pm on Monday 4 November 2024. The repair was therefore completed in around 1 working day. This was also a day after her correspondence on a Sunday that raised concerns about the impact on her vulnerable child’s health, which is reasonably timely.
The resident raised various dissatisfaction with the service she received. The operative at the first visit did not have a company van or parts. They also did not offer a heater at the first visit and she had to buy one herself. The contractor appropriately considered the concerns about the operative. The boiler was left functional at the first visit and the contractor appropriately offered heaters when the resident made them aware the boiler was not working again.
The Ombudsman cannot see significant failings with these, and given this and that the landlord met its overall obligations for the repair, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about the loss of heating and hot water.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded within the timeframes of its complaint policy at both stages. At stage 2 it also appropriately acknowledged and sought to correct some issues with its stage 1 response. However, it could have been clearer about some issues. It identified no failings for the heating but partly upheld the complaint, which comes across as confusing. It referred to historical damp and mould compensation which confused matters and was unnecessary, given its focus should be on recent service. It did not address the flooring in its responses and clearly set out its position in writing, which would have been helpful.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was also limited in the issues it specifically addressed, and for most issues just said it was satisfied these were adequately addressed. This missed the opportunity to clearly show that it had considered all the issues, and was ensuring aspects such as potential breaches of the tenancy terms for the parking were being appropriately investigated.
The above leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in respect to parking.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in respect to the communal stairwells.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified with the parking, damp and mould, and its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. update the resident about the current status of its investigation and actions for the parking issues.
2. ensure it considers all available options to resolve any unreasonable parking behaviour, such as the implementation of permits, if it has not done this already.
The landlord is recommended to:
1. liaise with the resident to review the status of damp and mould at the property and confirm it is doing all it can to assist with any current issues.
2. review how it can ensure that the resident’s household vulnerability is captured when it raises repairs, particularly damp and mould-related repairs, so that staff and contractors are made aware of this and prioritise repairs where appropriate.
The landlord is recommended to:
1. review if future repairs for lifted communal flooring should be raised with an ‘urgent’ rather than ‘routine’ priority.
2. review the condition of the communal flooring, and frequency of reports about it since 2024, and confirm that it is satisfied this does not require replacement.
The landlord is recommended to review its complaint handling and staff training needs, to ensure that it does sufficient investigations and responses at each stage of its procedure which reflect issues complainants raise.