We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Hillingdon (202452711)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452711

London Borough of Hillingdon

19 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s damp and mould reports and associated repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 29 December 2016. The property is a 2-bed ground floor flat.
  2. The resident has experienced issues with damp and mould historically at the property. The landlord has attended and carried out repair and treatment works.
  3. On 5 July 2023, the resident reported a roof leak and the landlord carried out repairs. On 8 December 2023, the landlord raised a works order for a mould wash to several rooms in the property.
  4. On 29 February 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the ongoing problem of damp and mould. She said that the landlord had failed to complete required works to a satisfactory standard and not kept promises it made about such works. The resident asked that the landlord provide a schedule of works to treat the cause of any damp and mould.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 13 March 2024. It apologised for a lack of communication and the outstanding works. The landlord proposed dates in March 2024 for several works and inspections with the aim of preventing and treating damp and mould. It said it would complete any required works “as quickly as possible”.
  6. On 17 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that several of the repairs remained outstanding. The resident detailed issues with brickwork, degraded roof flashing and black mould.
  7. The landlord raised further inspections and works orders for the damp and mould over the next few months.
  8. On 21 February 2025, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The escalation centred around the outstanding works and concerns that the conditions led to health issues for the resident’s children. The resident said that the landlord continued to carry out mould washes, but it failed to fix the cause.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 March 2025 and upheld the complaint. It said that an inspection found multiple issues linked to damp and mould and suggested that it temporarily move the resident while it completed the required works.
  10. The landlord has indicated that, as of 5 September 2025, the works remain outstanding, and the resident remains in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Within her submission, the resident said she reported damp and mould at the property for several years. Records show damp and mould reports and related works over previous years.
  2. The Ombudsman may not consider events which took place more than 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. On this basis, our investigation will focus solely on the period between July 2023 (following a report of damp and mould) and the stage 2 response in March 2025. Nevertheless, we have considered relevant events prior to that for context in assessing the landlord’s more recent actions.
  3. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord proposed a move to temporary accommodation while it completed works at the property. Recent evidence suggests that there is a dispute over the suitability of the accommodation offered by the landlord. As this did not form part of the complaint, this report will not include any determination of the landlord’s actions in proposing or sourcing the temporary accommodation.
  4. The resident can raise this any dispute about the temporary accommodation as a new complaint with the landlord and follow the internal complaint procedure to seek a satisfactory resolution. If she remained dissatisfied after the end of the complaints process, she may wish to bring the complaint to us for consideration.

The resident’s damp and mould reports and associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will seek to deal with the cause of damp not just the symptom, wherever possible “fixing first time”. The policy adds that the completion of any remedial works/measures will take place within a ‘reasonable timeframe’. The policy outlines that where there is recurring damp, the landlord will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy shows that it should complete routine works in 20 working days. The policy says that the landlord should complete ‘minor works’ (larger jobs which require more planning) within 90 working days.
  3. The resident’s February 2024 complaint said that the landlord had not completed works to a satisfactory standard and repairs it previously proposed remained outstanding. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that works remained both incomplete and outstanding at the property. Although there is reference to roofing works in mid-2023 and a mould wash in late 2023, it is apparent that the landlord intended to do other works. The landlord acknowledged at stage 1 that it delayed in completing french drain works for instance. This likely caused the resident to have to report damp and mould in the property again through 2024This was a service failing on the part of the landlord as it shows failings in meeting timeframes and in seeking a first-time fix.  
  4. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord proposed several works linked to previous reports of damp and mould at the property. It is unclear whether the landlord acted on information from the resident or whether it reviewed its own records to identify the works required.
  5. Nevertheless, given the history of damp and mould reports at the property, an appropriate course of action would have been for the landlord to complete a full inspection, ensuring it identified all potential symptoms and causes of damp. It said it would do so in March 2024. However, there is no evidence that it completed an inspection until after the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 26 January 2025. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not take appropriate steps to diagnose the cause of damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe. This was despite the resident reporting black mould to bedroom walls in September 2024.
  6. This Service requested copies of any damp and mould inspection reports completed by the landlord. Despite this request, the landlord did not offer such a report. It did provide a copy of a quote for works from March 2024. However, it noted that the contractor quoted for those works without obtaining access to the property. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord, demonstrating a lack of adequate record keeping as other notes suggest inspections did occur.
  7. When the landlord raised a works order on 3 February 2025, it said that the damp course had ‘gone’ around the whole property. Landlord records show that a contractor first identified a problem with the damp course in May 2021. There is no record of any works orders to repair or replace the damp course after that visit. This information was available to the landlord during the stage 1 complaint process in 2024 but it did not appear to properly review this at the time.  
  8. The lack of a comprehensive inspection and full consideration of the history of damp problems at the property led to missed opportunities at stage 1 of the complaint process. Had the landlord properly considered its records and done the MOT inspection it promised, it could have ensured that it was aware of all potential causes of damp and then sought to repair them as part of the proposed actions at stage 1. This was a significant service failing by the landlord, leading to additional and unnecessary delays in essential damp course repair works. 
  9. Also, the landlord’s records show that it first raised a works order for the installation of a French drain at the property in November 2021. Despite the works order showing as completed, the landlord acknowledged on 13 March 2024 that this work remained incomplete, some 28 months later.
  10. Despite its proposed actions in the March 2024 stage 1 response, the landlord failed to complete those works and they remained outstanding in February 2025 when it raised a new works order. This was another service failing by the landlord as it did not act on works that it identified as incomplete almost a year earlier. It therefore did not act in line with the timeframe set out in its repair policy. 
  11. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord also said it would inspect the roof, obtain a quote for the required works and complete the repairs ‘as quickly as possible’. Despite receiving a quote for works following an inspection, the landlord did not approve this due to ‘section 20 implications’. As the resident is not a leaseholder, it is unclear why there is reference to possible section 20 implications. The landlord repeated a similar position in the stage 2 response from March 2025, in which it said that proposed roof works required leaseholder consultation meaning “this will take time”.
  12. Despite requests from this Service, the landlord did not provide any evidence of a requirement for consultation before carrying out essential roofing works at the property. If the landlord believed there was a requirement for consultation, it is unreasonable that it was still using this as a reason why works remained outstanding a year later. Regardless of any belief in the requirement for a consultation, this should not lead to the landlord delaying essential repairs to the property. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord, meaning a potential cause of damp was unaddressed for over a year.
  13. In September 2024, the resident made the landlord aware of the outstanding repairs at the property. The landlord arranged an inspection due to the new reports of damp and mould in the property. However, it took no further action to complete the outstanding works from stage 1 and resolve the potential causes of the damp. The landlord therefore failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s reports.
  14. Within the same email, the resident expressed concern that the damp was affecting her daughters’ health. Despite this, there is no record of the landlord conducting any risk assessment. As there was recurring damp at the property, along with health concerns, the landlord should have completed a comprehensive risk assessment. The landlord failed to do so and did not act in line with its damp and mould policy. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the resident’s reasonable concerns about the safety of her family.
  15. The resident escalated her concerns about the landlord’s management of the damp and the effect on her family’s health on 26 January 2025. Following this email and the escalation of the complaint, the landlord did carry out a full inspection of the property and raised a works order to address the possible causes of the damp at the property.
  16. It is positive that the landlord recognised the scope of the required works to address the continued damp in its March 2025 stage 2 response. The landlord’s offer to move the resident into temporary accommodation to carry out the extensive works was reasonable given the scale of works proposed.
  17. In summary, the landlord consistently failed to follow both its repair policy and its damp and mould policy. The time taken to inspect and treat the symptoms of the damp fell outside of the required timeframes and it also failed to provide adequate oversight of the agreed works required to resolve the potential causes. The landlord left the resident to continue to chase agreed works and manage the mould issues herself while concerned for her family’s health.
  18. Having considered the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports and the associated repairs.  

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy recognises a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge requests for escalation to stage 2, before the completion of a complaint form on 21 February 2025.
  2. On 26 January 2025, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction at the continued issues with damp, the health implications it posed and the lack of action by the landlord. Although the landlord responded, it did not acknowledge this as a complaint.
  3. On 3 February 2025, the resident indicated that she had spoken to this Service as the landlord failed to respond. The resident directly requested an escalation to stage 2 but the landlord failed to acknowledge the request, or to escalate the complaint. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord, causing further unnecessary delays and delaying the resident’s access to our Service.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will consider distress, time and trouble when considering a payment of compensation. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it acknowledged significant delay and failings in the management of repairs linked to damp and mould. Given the complaint handling failures, the failures acknowledged in its handling of repairs and the impact on the resident, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to offer any compensation.
  5. Having considered the failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £900 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her damp and mould reports and associated repairs;
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaint.
  3. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should set out its position around providing temporary accommodation for the duration of the required works. It should update her on its current plans to source temporary accommodation and if it is satisfied that the property is safe to live in pending this move.
  4. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should provide a schedule of works to the resident, detailing the repairs to be undertaken along with proposed timeframes for each.
  5. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.