London Borough of Islington (202346285)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346285

London Borough of Islington

28 August 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 the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the top floor of a purpose-built maisonette. The resident lives at the property with her child.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord conducted a damp survey of the property. Repair records show the survey:
1. Found that in the resident’s bedroom she had fitted wardrobes and the backboard had some presence of damp and mould.
2. Also found there was condensation on the windowsills.
3. Did not find any mould visible on walls and ceilings in the rest of the property.
4. Recorded humidity levels at 54%.
5. Advised the resident to leave the bedroom area clear and allow air circulation. It also provided her with a damp and mould leaflet.
The landlord completed a roof inspection of the property on 23 February 2023 and found no structural issues. The resident reported a leak from the roof affecting her bathroom on 26 July 2023. The landlord attended on the same day and on 27 July 2023, it said it intended to make the area safe. On the landlord’s visit of 27 July 2023 it documented there was a hole in the bathroom ceiling and that the roof gully was blocked. The landlord re-plastered the resident’s ceiling on 18 September 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2023. The resident said she was still experiencing a leak. The landlord cleared the roof gully on 25 October 2023. The landlord raised further repairs to the roof on 31 October 2023. The landlord said it was to:
1. Erect scaffolding at the property.
2. Prepare the existing surface of the roof, remove moss and debris, and apply waterproof coating.
3. Repair the roof felt and roof window.
4. Clear the drains.
On 2 January 2024 the resident reported issues with the bathroom ceiling to the landlord. The landlord attended on the same day and said it did not need to make the area safe and there were no repairs required. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 January 2024. The resident said:
1. Since 2022 she had experienced a lack of repair to address mould that was appearing behind her wardrobes on the wall in her bedroom. She felt there was a lack of urgency from the landlord.
2. She reported a leak in July 2023 that the landlord attended to, but issues were unresolved and further repairs were not completed until January 2024. Additionally, no one returned to check whether mould had stopped growing.
3. Mould had damaged her clothing and furniture and had started growing near the washing machine and in other rooms.
4. The property was unhabitable, and the bathroom was wet for several months.
On 21 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Then on 2 February 2024 it sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord outlined its history of actions and attendances from January 2023. The landlord told the resident:
1. It raised roof repairs on 31 October 2023. Its roofing contractors did not complete these repairs until 16 January 2024. It acknowledged a delay in raising follow-on roofing works despite its visit on 2 January 2024.
2. That she could contact its internal team about rehousing.
3. That she could claim for damages to personal possessions via her own contents insurance. If she did not have contents insurance she was advised to contact its internal insurance team.
4. It would organise another inspection of the property.
5. It awarded a total of £250 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £50 for time and effort.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked for her complaint to be escalated on 15 February 2024. On the same day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. The landlord tried to survey the property on 27 February 2024 but was unable to gain access. The landlord completed a damp survey on 12 March 2024 and found damp and mould on the wall behind the fitted wardrobes in the bedroom. The landlord said the resident did not provide access to any other room in the property. The landlord concluded from its survey that there was possible water ingress via the external brickwork or the roof.
On 13 March 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord said:
1. There was miscommunication when arranging its recent survey (completed on 12 March 2024). It acknowledged the resident had provided dates of availability to avoid a missed appointment and apologised that her experience was not to the standard it would expect.
2. Scaffolding needed to be installed for it to address the leak issues, but it did not have a date to provide when this would take place.
3. To address the damp and mould issues the resident had agreed to remove the fitted wardrobes in the bedroom.
4. It was still investigating the resident’s request to be moved.
5. It was awarding a total of £425 for the delayed repair, its miscommunication, and the overall time the resident had experienced damp and mould. This comprised of:
  1. £350 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £75 for time and effort.
The resident contacted us on 15 March 2024 and said she wanted us to investigate her complaint. The resident remained dissatisfied because she felt the damp and mould issues were unresolved and she had not been provided dates of when repairs would commence. The resident also told us that if the repairs were not completed, she would want to be moved from the property.
The resident said the landlord inspected the property in July 2024. The landlord said another inspection of the property was booked for 3 October 2024. In December 2024 the resident told us the landlord had completed repairs. The resident told us that despite these actions, a new leak had occurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us damp and mould issues in her property date back to 2022. We acknowledge the resident made multiple reports and service enquiries. However, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to consider the issue when it is still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available.
As above, the evidence shows the resident first submitted a formal complaint about these matters on 21 January 2024. We consider a reasonable period to be within 12 months of the matters arising, so we can look at issues the resident reported from 21 January 2023. However, events prior will not form part of this assessment.
Excluding any commitments the landlord made in its complaint responses, we can only comment on events up to its final response. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs, inspections, or new events after 13 March 2024, she can potentially raise a complaint.
The resident also told us that her and her child’s health and wellbeing had been affected due to the damp and mould. While we do not doubt the resident’s concerns, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This maybe better suited for the courts.

Leak, damp, and mould

We will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
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) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard under HHSRS. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including the:
1. External decoration and walls, external doors, external window frames, and sills.
2. Internal structure.
The landlord operates a “Housing Procedure Damp and Mould” (damp and mould policy). From 30 August 2023 onwards, the landlord in its damp and mould policy states:
1. Inspections or surveys are to be completed in 20 working days.
2. Where it deems a repair as an emergency, it will action within 24 hours.
3. For non-urgent repairs it aims to complete these within 20 working days.
Prior to 30 August 2023 the landlord’s damp and mould policy said:
1. After a damp and mould survey had been completed, if needed it had an additional 3 working days to log repairs.
2. The timescales for any repairs fell under its “Housing Policy Repairs and Maintenance” (repairs policy) which stated it had:
  1. 24-hours for urgent repairs to make the area safe.
  2. 20 working days for routine repairs.
We acknowledge the landlord surveyed the property on 23 January 2023. The landlord found that mould was limited to the backboard of the resident’s fitted wardrobes in her bedroom. HHSRS says indoor relative humidity should be between 40% and 60%. The evidence shows the landlord had recorded humidity levels at 54%. This was in line with the recommendation by HHSRS. We can see the landlord provided advice to the resident about managing mould and gave a damp and mould booklet. This was reasonable action by it.
Following the survey, the landlord raised a roof inspection to investigate damp. We can see the landlord appropriately raised works and attended to inspect the roof in 23 working days. This was inside the expected timeframes from both its repairs policy, and its damp and mould policy at the time. Additionally, the landlord found no issues with the structure of the property at that stage. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its staff.
However, the resident experienced a leak which flooded the bathroom on 26 July 2023. The evidence shows it took:
1. Less than 24 hours for the landlord to attend the property and temporarily remedy the leak and make safe.
2. 37 working days to re-plaster the ceiling after its emergency visit. This was 17 working days over the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
3. 64 working days to clear blocked drains on roof after it noted a blocked gully on 27 July 2023. This was 44 working days over its repairs policy timescales.
While the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak was appropriate, its subsequent repairs were delayed. Repairs were inappropriately managed by the landlord as it was aware of the extent of the issues from 27 July 2023. These repairs should have been completed by 23 August 2023. The evidence shows the resident was clearly distressed during this period. She expended time and trouble chasing the landlord for further action.
The landlord accepted in its stage 1 complaint response that roof repairs which were raised on 31 October 2023 were not completed until 16 January 2024. This meant there was a 32 working day delay, which was inappropriate.
In contrast, the landlord appropriately attended to the property on 2 January 2024 inside its emergency repair timescales. This was to inspect the bathroom ceiling. The contractor found that it did not need to make safe the bathroom as there were no issues.
Despite the landlord’s observations, the resident continued to report issues with damp and mould in the property. The resident told the landlord about damage to her personal possessions. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised the resident about making an insurance claim via contents insurance. If she did not have contents insurance, it advised her to contact its insurance team. This was a reasonable response.
Further, in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it committed to re-inspecting the property again. We can see the landlord tried to conduct a survey on 26 February 2024 but was unable to access the property. This attempt to survey the property was inside the landlord’s 20 working day timescales and was therefore an appropriate response.
The resident’s complaint also outlines that she felt the property was unhabitable and if the damp and mould was not resolved, she wanted to be moved. The information provided to us by the landlord was limited. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for rehousing directly by its final response. Therefore, the landlord failed to address the resident’s request to move.
The landlord also failed to reasonably communicate information about the resident’s other options to find alternative properties, such as via mutual exchange. In failing to identify these shortcomings within its complaint response, the landlord missed the opportunity to put them right. The lack of consideration and lack of clear communication about rehousing options by the landlord caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The evidence shows the landlord re-attended the property on 12 March 2024 but the resident did not provide access to all rooms in the property. The landlord accepted in its final response that it should have communicated the appointment times better with the resident. Despite the survey, the landlord did not provide its position on whether the property was habitable. The landlord also did not commit to carrying out any repairs in its stage 2 complaint response. When the resident contacted us about her complaint in March 2024 she said she did not have dates for repairs and wanted to be moved.
Therefore, the landlord’s communication and failing to commit to repairs was unreasonable in the circumstances. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations, and this also demonstrated it was not resolution focused.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould was published in October 2021. This stated landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. Residents should not be expected to follow up on outstanding works. Had the landlord followed these recommendations, it may have avoided service failings.
The landlord identified some failings in its final response. It awarded a total of £425 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience experienced by the resident. This amount took into consideration:
1. The 32 working delay to repair the roof (from 31 October 2023 until 16 January 2024).
2. Miscommunication around appointment times for its survey in 2024.
3. The overall time the resident experienced damp and mould issues in the property.
We have considered that from January 2023 until March 2024 the extent of the mould was limited to one wall in the resident’s bedroom. Under our Remedies Guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure. The Remedies Guidance also considers the severity of the situation, and the length of time involved.
While the landlord’s offer of compensation was positive, the issue remained unresolved at the time of the stage 2 complaint response. From our investigation we have also found that the landlord did not identify all its failures by that stage. This included:
1. Repair delays prior to 25 October 2023 amounting to a total of a 63 working-day delay.
2. The landlord’s lack of consideration of the resident wanting to be moved.
3. It not setting out its position on whether the property was habitable.
As such, the landlord’s offer of £425 did not consider the full detriment experienced by the resident due to these above failures. The landlord also did not identify any learning from the resident’s complaint. Considering the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
For the above failures by the landlord, we have awarded an additional £200 in compensation. This considers the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, as well as the time and trouble expended by her due to the landlord’s inactions. This reflects all the failings by the landlord from August 2023 until March 2024. This amount is also in line with our Remedies Guidance where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The total compensation owed to the resident is therefore £625.
Additionally, as the landlord did not identify any learning, we have made an order for it to carry out a review and identify lessons learned from the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £625 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the issues prior to October 2023, and its lack of response regarding habitability, and rehousing.
  2. £425 offered in its stage 2 complaint response. If any of the £425 offered had been previously paid, it can be deducted from the £625 ordered.
Within 6 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review. This is to include what it has learned from the complaint and what steps it can put in place to avoid repeat errors. This is to be shared with us.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.