London Borough of Barnet (202507401)

Background

1. The resident lives in a semi-detached first floor flat with his partner and children. The resident said his child had aspergillosis from the damp and mould in their previous tenancy.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the:
   1. Resident’s report of damp and mould,
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the damp and mould.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the damp and mould

4. The landlord reduced the height of the chimney as advised by its contractors to resolve the damp and mould. However, the landlord failed to assess the condition of the brickwork to establish whether this was the reason for the reported damp and mould and this demonstrated a lack of ownership of the checks it agreed to carry out.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to the Stage 2 complaint in line with its published complaint timescales.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
7. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it takes reports of damp and mould seriously. It will investigate to determine the cause and take steps to remedy damp and mould including when the property is empty. It is reasonable to expect any quality inspection of damp and mould should include an assessment of all possible causes of the damp which involves checking the fabric of the building for faults. This should include the roof, brickwork, rainwater goods and extraction with the building.
8. In line with this, in February 2024 when the property was empty, the landlord had an independent assessment of the property completed. It was informed the property had condensation and this would be remedied once occupied with adequate ventilation and heating. The contractor provided a schedule of works to the landlord which was completed. This included:
   1. Loft insulated on 21 March 2024.
   2. Roof inspection on 24 April 2024.
   3. Renewal and refixing of stepped flashing. Back gutter renewed to the side of the chimney stack. Chimney re-flaunched and 2 cowls fitted to chimney pots on 28 May 2024.
   4. Ventilation of the roof space by 28 June 2024 and kitchen by 23 August 2024.
   5. Plaster repairs to the hallway, back bedroom chimney breast and installation of restraint straps to main wall of the property were completed by 16 September 2024.
9. These were reasonable actions as damp and mould growth are potential hazards which the landlord is required to consider and remedy.
10. On receiving a further report of water ingress from the resident on 22 and 30 July 2024, it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a recall to its contractor. It was necessary for the landlord to satisfy itself the roof and associated works had been carried out to the required standard.
11. The landlord’s contractor reattended on 10 September 2024 and informed the landlord the water ingress was not due to the roof works it had carried out. Rather the dampness was due to water ingress coming from the faces of the chimney and this should be checked. The landlord was also advised to check the guttering.
12. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will use competent contractors and the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional advice it receives. Following the contractors inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to act on the advice received. This was to reduce the height of the chimney to roof level to stop the potential for water ingress. The landlord in its Stage 2 complaint response apologised for its delay in carrying out the work. The landlord went on to explain scaffolding was required to carry out the work and its contractors did not work during the Christmas period. It is also noted the landlord contacted the neighbouring property to obtain permission for the work to be carried out.
13. The resident has told us the property condition has affected his and his family’s health. Also, he had experienced a similar situation in the property he previously lived in. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
14. The work was completed on 21 February 2025 to lead and cap the top of the chimney to stop the water ingress. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says after guttering and roofing works it will post inspect. The landlord took until 15 May 2025, taking 57 working days to assess the work undertaken by its contractor. As it is responsible for the actions of its contractor, it was appropriate for the landlord in its Stage 2 response to identify the necessity for adopting stricter measures to monitor work. However, in taking so long to post inspect the work, the landlord has not demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint.
15. The landlord demonstrated it inspected, diagnosed, used competent contractors and insulated its homes as set out in its damp and mould policy. Diagnosing the cause of damp and mould sometimes can be complex and may need a variety of methods to find the actual reason for the cause of the damp and mould in the property.
16. It was reasonable the landlord in its Stage 2 response apologised for the communication failures experienced by the resident. It recognised the resident was not regularly updated and acknowledged the difficulties the resident experienced. At times this may have left the resident feeling unsupported with the lack of clear, transparent communication.
17. When landlords make commitments regarding outstanding works in its complaints response, it is expected to complete those works within a reasonable time frame. The landlord in its Stage 2 complaint response agreed to check the brickwork for any defects. The landlord also agreed the point of contact would confirm to the resident the appointment for the work to be carried out. There is no evidence it did so. This was not reasonable as it contributed to the delay experienced by the resident.
18. The resident told us his preferred outcome was to be moved to permanent alternative accommodation. There is no evidence the landlord assessed the property to be uninhabitable once the tenancy started in November 2024 which means it did not need to consider whether it needed to provide temporary alternative accommodation. The resident can obtain a permanent move by applying to the local council for a transfer under the Choice Based Lettings System. The local council will assess his housing needs and give its decision about his qualification for the housing register. The resident has told us he is dissatisfied with the property condition and intends to look for his own accommodation.
19. The resident made a new complaint to the landlord around June 2025, including ongoing water ingress into the property. From what can be seen that complaint did not complete the landlord’s formal complaint procedure neither was the complaint escalated to us. For those reasons, that complaint cannot be considered as part of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response once it has completed the landlord’s complaint process, that can be bought to us for consideration. It is noted in August 2025 the landlord raised a works order under its planned maintenance programme, to carry out external works to apply sealer to the brickwork. The landlord has told us the works should take place by the end of December 2025.
20. The landlord in its complaints review apologised for the delay, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. When assessing redress due to the resident, it was appropriate the landlord considered the resident’s request for decorating vouchers and agreed to supply such vouchers. The landlord paid £250 in decorating vouchers and an additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience experienced. Our Remedies Guidance suggests payments between £100 to £600 are sufficient for service failures which have adversely affected the resident. While the overall compensation awarded fell within the middle of our suggested awards, it is not considered sufficient or proportionate for the overall delay experienced by the resident for the damp and mould in the property. For the reasons a further £200 has been awarded.
21. While we cannot establish the underlying cause of the damp and mould, it is apparent the cause of the damp and mould is ongoing. The investigation considered whether the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately to the reports it received. For the failings identified a finding of maladministration has been made.

22. The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond at its first stage within 10 working days. The landlord did so when it responded to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint.
23. The landlord’s complaint procedure sets out it will acknowledge Stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. The landlord took 15 working days to acknowledge the complaint. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 February 2025 to request more time to respond to the Stage 2 complaint. Overall, the landlord took 30 working days to respond to the resident’s Stage 2 complaint. This represented an unreasonable delay which impacted the resident.
24. The landlord in its complaints review did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures or the impact to the resident. This is not reasonable as effective complaint handling processes are fundamental to maintaining resident trust and satisfaction. The landlord missed an opportunity to offer redress for the extension of time it had requested and the impact to the resident.
25. For those reasons, a finding of service failure has been made and additional compensation of £100 awarded to put things right as these had not been acknowledged by the landlord.

Learning

26. The landlord recognised in its complaints review the importance of monitoring the work carried out by its contractor. However, it did not show it had a tracking system in place to ensure sure it post inspected work carried out within a reasonable period. There was also a failure to manage progress by having a mechanism to ensure it followed through on commitments it had made throughout its complaint process.