London Borough of Croydon (202514330)

Background

1. The property is a maisonette served by a communal ventilation system. The resident lives at the property with her young children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s:
   1. complaint handling
   2. record keeping

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. handling of reports of damp and mould
   2. complaint handling
   3. record keeping

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of damp and mould

5. There were consistent delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord failed to conduct surveys for a significant length of time. The records of the surveys completed were of inadequate detail to demonstrate that the landlord took reasonable measures to tackle the root causes of the damp and mould. It completed several repairs but took too long to identify and resolve outstanding issues. Its communication with the resident was poor and the impact on her was significant.

      Complaint handling

6. There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling which it did not adequately identify and put right. It missed correspondence from the resident which should have been raised as a formal complaint. It failed to respond to all of the concerns raised in the complaint.

Record keeping

7. The landlord’s repair records lacked reasonable levels of detail, which led to failings. The information the landlord provided to us did not contain all of the information we asked for and would expect the landlord to have.

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’s damp and mould policy states it will inspect all reports of mould within 10 days, or urgent cases within 6 working days. It says after the inspection it will complete a further survey if required within 10 days. Any repairs identified will then be completed within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It will also provide residents with inspection reports within 3 days, take steps to tackle the root causes, and conduct follow-up inspections after any repairs.
9. The resident reported mould on 23 November 2023. The landlord categorised the report as urgent, requiring a visit within 6 working days. It attended to inspect and complete a mould wash on 6 December 2023. This was a delay of 3 working days. The inspection identified some mould growth in the kitchen and bedroom, with ‘significant mould’ on the bathroom ceiling and walls around the shower. It said the cause was high humidity resulting from inadequate ventilation and airflow at the property.
10. The landlord had already completed a mould wash and so it is reasonable that it complete the follow on works as routine repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed with 28 working days. The landlord attended 35 working days later on 29 January 2024 to complete work to improve the ventilation. This was a further minor delay.
11. During this visit, the landlord’s repair logs state that work was carried out, but do not give any further detail. The landlord said in its complaint responses that it fit new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom during the visit. The resident disputed this. She said that contractors attended and told her that the existing fans were turning but not drawing air as they should, but that they were unable to fit new extractor fans for technical reasons. Due to the landlord’s insufficient records we have been unable to verify which account is accurate.
12. In either event, the landlord’s policy states that it should conduct follow up inspections after any damp and mould repair. The landlord failed to do this as it did not contact the resident again after the repair. During this time the resident told us that she was waiting for the landlord to return to replace the fans and complete further work. The landlord did not provide records of any contact with the resident during this period.
13. On 20 June 2024 the resident reported mould in her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord’s repair logs note a mould wash was completed on 11 July 2024, 15 working days later. This was a further delay of 9 working days. The landlord should have taken steps to investigate the root cause, in line with its policy. There is no evidence that the landlord completed further investigations at this time, which was a failing. The resident sent the landlord an email which included pictures of high moisture readings on 24 October 2024, but it did not attend to complete a survey until 5 December 2024. This was 168 days after the resident’s report of 20 June 2024. The reason for this significant delay is unclear and represents a failing.
14. The survey again noted ‘significant mould growth caused by inadequate ventilation’. In its stage 1 complaint response it told the resident it would attend to complete repairs on 7 January 2025. It did not attend on that date and there is no evidence any work was ever scheduled for 7 January 2025. The landlord did not complete a mould wash until 15 January 2025, 38 days after the survey and 83 days after her report of 24 October 2024.
15. It should have completed any repairs identified within 28 working days of the survey, in line with its policy. The works scheduled were completed on 3 March 2025, 59 working days later. The landlord later said these delays were caused by the time it had taken to approve quote variations. The landlord did not provide us with any evidence of its handling of these works, so there is no evidence that these delays were reasonable.
16. The landlord attended on 5 occasions between 5 February 2025 and 3 March 2025 to:
    1. complete weatherproofing works to the roof
    2. install ‘vent kits’
    3. install a positive input ventilation (PIV) system
    4. replace window seals and install trickle vents
17. These works were a positive step. However they were completed 1 year, 2 months and 25 days after the landlord first inspected and identified significant mould growth and inadequate ventilation. The resident told us that she was washing mould at the property weekly during this period. This was a significant failing and the landlord was responsible for unnecessary delays longer than was reasonable.
18. On 4 March 2025 the resident reported her own moisture readings were not improving, but that she would continue to monitor the situation. She told the landlord that a surveyor had told her that the PIV system was not working correctly, but there is no written account from the surveyor about this. The landlord completed an inspection of all the works it had done on 18 March 2025, which was in line with its policy. It said that all works had been completed but that further monitoring was required. However, the detail recorded in this inspection was limited. It made no reference to the issues the resident had reported about the PIV system.
19. On 8 April 2025 the resident reported that humidity readings were improved in the hallway but still high in the bedroom. On 22 April 2025 she asked the landlord for an update on inspecting the PIV system. The landlord sent a contractor to inspect the PIV system on 21 May 2025, indicating that it did not inspect the PIV system as would have been reasonable on 18 March 2025. This was 78 days after she first raised these concerns and was a failing.
20. There are 3 conflicting accounts of what happened during the visit on 8 April 2025. The landlord’s repair logs state that no issues were identified with the PIV system. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gives a detailed description of a fault that was identified, which it says and resolved on the day. The resident said that the contractors had told her that the PIV system was functioning as expected, but that it was not improving the humidity problems in the way that it should be, which required further inspection.
21. The resident continued to report high humidity on 28 May 2025. The landlord advised her to keep her windows open and use the extractor fans. The resident informed the landlord that it should be aware the extractor fans had not worked since January 2024. The relevant staff member denied being aware of this in internal emails and inspected the property on 10 June 2025, concluding that all issues had been resolved.
22. The landlord has the right to rely on the opinion of its experts. However, there is evidence in this instance that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct further investigations, or better scrutinize the inspection that was done. This is because:
    1. there is no evidence to support the landlord’s conclusion that all issued had been resolved, such as moisture meter readings. This would have been reasonable given the resident had submitted her own moisture readings, which were high
    2. the report makes reference to 8 ‘issues’, which includes photographs of the PIV units and the ducting serving the extractor fans, but provides no further detail
    3. in internal emails from June 2025 the landlord noted that ‘the ‘communal ventilation system isn’t great’, but did not take steps to investigate further
23. More recent evidence shows the landlord instructed a different surveyor to complete an investigation in October 2025, which found that the PIV system had been installed in a location that meant it was not working. The PIV system was marked ‘failed’ and recalled. It also found issues with the ducting that served the extractor fans, corroborating the reports that the resident had been making since January 2024.
24. Due to the lack of detail in the landlord’s records, we cannot conclude why these faults were not identified or properly recorded prior to October 2025. However, the surveys it completed consist mostly of photographs, each labelled as an ‘issue’ without further description. The fans, PIV system, and ducting are shown as ‘issues’ on each report from December 2024 onward. The nature of these issues is not elaborated on further. This raises concerns on the quality of the surveys done and the landlord’s associated record keeping practices.
25. The landlord later repaired the duct serving the extractor fans and raised further works to the PIV system. The resident later told us that the landlord could not resolve the issues with the PIV system. The resident reported to us in December 2025 that she continues clean mould frequently at the property and that the landlord had stopped taking further action. To provide reassurance to the resident we have ordered the landlord to organise an independent surveyor to inspect the property to ensure the root cause is addressed.
26. Of further concern is that throughout the period we have considered after November 2023, the landlord advised the resident to keep her windows open all day and night. Surveyors frequently made note of how many windows were open on arrival at the property, even though the surveys took place in October and December, when the temperature was likely to be low. While it is reasonable for a landlord to advise residents to open windows as part of managing condensation, this advice should not be the primary or repeated response to reports of damp and mould. Frequent reliance on this advice risks placing responsibility on the resident rather than addressing root causes. It was not reasonable to expect the resident to keep her windows open continuously.
27. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. At times, there was no communication from the landlord at all. Our spotlight report on damp and mould was published in October 2021. The landlord told us that it had assessed itself against our report. In its self-assessment, the landlord said that it aims to ‘keep the resident updated at every stage of the repairs journey and provide a single point of contact’. However the resident was frequently given no information about upcoming or past repairs when she asked for it. She was also given inaccurate information about upcoming repairs, such as on 7 January 2025.
28. The resident sent large volumes of emails to the landlord’s damp and mould team, but did not receive a response. The landlord’s complaints team communicated well with the resident throughout the time her complaint was open, as stated by the resident. The complaints team also sent enquiries to the landlord’s damp and mould team. However, this often also did not result in a response. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will provide the resident copies of survey findings within 3 working days. The landlord failed to do this. This could have ensured that points of dispute around repairs were addressed earlier than they were.
29. The landlord’s damp and mould team’s frequent failure to communicate effectively with both the resident and its own complaints team is concerning. The landlord’s communication with the resident resulted in extensive and avoidable time, trouble, and frustration to the resident.
30. The landlord offered £400 compensation to the resident for delays in completing the damp and mould works, which it implied was for the period 5 December 2024 to 3 March 2025. However, this investigation has found that these delays would more reasonably be described as being from 23 November 2023 to 5 March 2025. In addition to this, the landlord failed to respond effectively to reports that these works had been ineffective in until it completed further work in September and October 2025. These works should have been identified sooner.
31. The time period concerned is significant. The resident described to the landlord cleaning mould weekly. The resident was worried for the health of her children, as mould can be harmful. She experienced extensive and avoidable distress and inconvenience. The resident later advised that the landlord had offered a further £200 compensation after its stage 2 complaint response. It is unclear why this was. This offer remained unreflective of the likely adverse effect experienced.
32. While there have been significant, prolonged failings in this case, the landlord di take some positive actions. However these actions did not fully resolve the issues and there were some failings in its approach. Therefore the compensation needed to put things right sits at the higher end of our remedies guidance.
33. Our remedies guidance states that where there have been failings over a significant period time, compensation of over £1,000 should be considered. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,250 compensation to reflect her time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. This replaces the £600 already offered.
34. On 2 December 2024 the resident informed the landlord that the mould was causing extensive damage to her belongings. The reported damage was extensive and included several items of furniture and large amounts of clothing. The landlord advised the resident to contact her contents insurer. The landlord’s policy does not give any indication of how the landlord should respond to reports of damage to belongings, but does note that it is the tenant’s responsibility to insure their belongings.
35. The resident remained unhappy because she did not feel it was fair to claim through her own insurer. Given that the landlord accepted some failings, such as delays, in its stage 2 complaint response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider if there may have been grounds for the resident to make a claim against its own liability insurance. It may also have been reasonable to consider if it should reimburse the resident for any of her damaged belongings. There is no evidence that it considered doing either and this was a failing. We have made orders for the landlord to put this right.
36. The resident also complained that she had incurred costs, such as purchasing dehumidifiers and running them from 5 December 2024 onwards. She also reported purchasing humidity meter readers and frequently buying mould cleaner. The landlord failed to respond to this elements of her complaint at both stages of the complaints process. This was not appropriate.
37. The landlord’s complaint remedies guidance states that it should consider reimbursement of costs incurred due to failings such as delays. The resident told the landlord that she spent £150 on dehumidifiers and ran them continuously from 5 December 2024 onward. We have received partial receipt evidence of these costs. We have ordered the landlord to reimburse the resident £150 for the cost of the dehumidifiers. We have ordered the landlord pay a further £50 in consideration of other costs which were likely incurred.
38. The cost of running a dehumidifier can vary widely depending on various factors. Reputable sources indicate that running costs of approximately £25 per month would be a median estimate, where a medium sized dehumidifier was used for 8 hours per day. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident estimated running costs of £25 per month from December 2024 to the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, on 25 June 2025. This totals £168.75 for the 6 months and 3 weeks concerned.

39. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging them. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. All complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days of being received. A complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. Landlords should respond to all elements of a complaint.
40. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 19 working days after it was received. However it failed to note this delay of 9 working days in either of its complaint responses. The resident provided us with copies of emails that she had sent to the landlord, which the landlord did not share with us. This included an email sent on 24 October 2024. This contained several expressions of dissatisfaction, which there is no evidence the landlord responded to. The landlord should have raised this as a formal complaint. In view of this, the landlord took 46 working days to response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
41. The landlord took 141 working days to respond the resident’s stage 2 complaint response. This was a significant failing. The main reason for this was that the landlord’s damp and mould team gave limited information to its complaints department. There were several instances where the damp and mould team did not reply to the complaints teams enquiries. This delay prevented the resident from getting matters resolved sooner.
42. We note that the landlord’s complaints team took positive steps on behalf of the resident during this time to progress her concerns. It also communicated with the resident frequently. However, the damp and mould team’s failure to engage with the complaints team resulted in a significant complaint handling failure.
43. In the resident’s complaints and escalation requests, she raised concerns about being reimbursed for costs that she had incurred. The landlord failed to provide a response to these concerns, resulting in the matter remaining unresolved. This was a failing. The landlord also failed to respond to other elements of the resident’s complaint, such as complaints about the landlord’s handling of her request to move properties due to overcrowding. The resident did not raise these concerns with us, but the landlord nevertheless failed to provide a response, in line with its complaints policy.
44. The landlord offered £75 compensation for delays. However, it did not recognise all of its failings or account for its delays at stage 1. It also caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience by not responding to her concerns about being reimbursed for costs she had incurred. We have increased the compensation the landlord should offer to £200 to reflect the likely impact of these additional failings.
45. The landlord’s complaint handling can only be effective where its complaint handling is supported by the wider organisation. The landlord’s complaint handling team did not conduct any learning in this case. We have made orders for the landlord to consider any learning it can take from this case.

46. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. Good record keeping assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of a property and the fittings within it. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
47. The landlord did not provide comprehensive records of its contact with the resident. For example, there were no records of its telephone contact with the resident, though there is evidence that several calls took place. This hampered our investigation, as the resident reported to us making more frequent contact with the landlord than the records reflect. The landlord also provided limited internal records from its damp and mould team, as well as its repairs team, which further hampered our investigation.
48. The landlord’s repair records consistently lacked adequate detail of what works had been done. In addition to the failings this led to which are highlighted earlier in this report, it also resulted in inaccurate information being given to the resident. When challenged on the landlord’s account of works, it told the resident that it was her responsibility to provide evidence to support her version of events. This was unreasonable.
49. The landlord should have held sufficient information to better support its account of events. For example, when claiming that it had installed new extractor fans, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with the make and model of the fans it had installed. This likely caused frustration to the resident.

Learning

50. On 11 September 2024 we determined case 202323686. We found failings in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs and ordered the landlord to complete a review to ensure improvement. This included ensuring works were booked in a timely manner. In view of the timings of the landlord’s failings in this case and the date the landlord completed this review, we have not ordered the landlord to repeat this work. However, there were additional failings in this case around the landlord’s communication with the resident which warrant further learning.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

51. We have previously investigated and found failings in relation to the landlord’s record keeping practices, particularly relating to repairs and surveyors reports. There are several decisions published on our website between 2023 and 2025 which have found failings in the landlord record keeping. We have made several orders for the landlord to review its record keeping practices. In this case the landlord’s record keeping likely continued to contribute significantly to failings in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports. Repair logs in this case dated 23 October 2025 continued to lack sufficient detail, suggesting that any recent learning has been ineffective. We have ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review of its failings in this case.

Communication

52. The landlord did not reflect on or look to learn from its communication failings in this case. The landlord should consider if it has sufficient systems and practices in place to support effective and proactive communication with residents. The landlord should also consider its own internal communication to avoid any unnecessary delays in the service it provides.