London Borough of Hounslow (202343142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343142

London Borough of Hounslow

6 October 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. A pest infestation.
We have also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a council since June 2020. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow and the resident lives alone with his service dog.
The landlord’s is aware the resident has vulnerabilities.
On 21 November 2023, the landlord’s Tenancy Support Officer (TSO) emailed the resident and advised that he had been referred by his Housing Manager for support. The TSO requested to complete a home visit to understand and resolve any property related issues. The evidence does not indicate if the TSO undertook a visit.
On 20 December 2023, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. He said the landlord had failed to box-in a new boiler, which had caused entry points for rodents (mice) and he wanted the landlord to eradicate the infestation.
On 29 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. A damp and mould inspection was booked for 1 February 2024.
2. On 13 November 2023, a pest controller, independent from the council, inspected the property but had difficulty locating the rodent’s entry points.
3. The TSO explained the findings to the resident and offered help and support to clear the property.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint because it had offered support and assistance to resolve the rodent infestation.Further, it said the damp and mould was responded to ina timely manner.
On 26 February 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to a stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process. He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the damp and mould, and rodent infestation.
On 15 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said its position had not changed. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident requested that we investigate his complaint because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said damp and mould had affected his health and destroyed his bed. Further, he said he felt that the landlord had put barriers in the way to avoid completing the repairs required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that damp and mould, and a pest infestation within the property had an effect on his health. While we do not dispute the resident’s position, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim or through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue these concerns.
The resident has also referred to a damaged bed caused by the damp and mould. While we can acknowledge the upset that may be caused by damaged items and personal belongings, it is not our role to consider if the damage was due to any failing by the landlord or its contractors or if it is liable to pay the resident compensation as this is a matter for the parties’ insurers.
What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Damp and mould

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that routine repairs will be carried out in 20 working days. It also says that repairs for vulnerable residents will be prioritised. Further, for vulnerable residents, if required and at its discretion, it would consider moving furniture and similar items to enable the completion of responsive repairs.
On 10 November 2023, the resident reported damp and mould within his bedroom. The landlord completed an inspection on 1 February 2024. This was a reasonable first step to take, as it was required to identify the cause of the damp and mould before it could carry out the relevant repairs. However, the inspection was attended 83 days after the resident’s initial report. The extensive delay was unreasonable.
The inspection concluded that severe mould and damp was found on 3 walls within the bedroom. On 22 February 2024, within 21 days of the inspection, the landlord attended to complete remedial works. This is considered a reasonable timeframe and was in-line with the landlord’s repairs policy of 20 days.
Upon arrival, the contractor noted that furniture was obstructing the wall and the space was too tight to work within. It is not evident that the landlord communicated with the resident that the room required clearing. With the resident’s vulnerabilities in mind, and reasonable adjustments outlined within its policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered support in clearing the room. In this case, this would have enabled the repairs to proceed on the date scheduled.
On 27 February 2024, the TSO contacted the resident and suggested a home visit. The resident wanted the landlord to dispose of his bed and the TSO was keen to discuss if any other support was required. The resident did not respond to the TSO. The TSO attempted again on 4, 11, 12 and 13 March 2024 without success. On 27 March 2024, an unannounced home visit found the resident at home and the bed was arranged for collection on 17th April 2024. This was a reasonable and proactive response from the landlord in an attempt to support the completion of the essential repairs.
On 7 March 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended the property again to complete the remedial works required. The landlord said that there was no access in the morning and upon re-attendance later in the day, the resident refused the works. Although it is noted that the TSO had attempted contact with the resident to remove the bed, the bed was still in situ and therefore the works could not have proceeded. It was therefore reasonable, on this occasion, for the resident to have refused the works.
The damp and mould works were recorded as completed on 16 May 2024. The repair works took 3 months for the landlord to complete, this is a significant delay to its expected repairs timescale of 20 days and is therefore inappropriate. However, the evidence shows some mitigating factors in that the landlord scheduled the repairs in a timely manner, attempted on 2 occasions to complete the repairs and offered support and assistance to find a resolution.
The resident told the landlord that he had been “forced to sleep on the floor for approximately 2 months” and his bed required disposal because of the damp and mould. And on 1 March 2024, the resident requested compensation to enable him to purchase a new bed. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this request and therefore did not provide any advice or guidance regarding the resident’s right to make a claim on its liability insurance. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to provide this information.
In May 2024, the resident told this service that the damp and mould had returned and confirmed this again to us during the investigation. In June 2024, the landlord said that it had installed air vents into the bedroom but the resident declined a post-inspection appointment. This had resulted in the landlord being unable to confidently determine that the mould and damp was resolved. It was right of the landlord to attempt a post-inspection. However, with the resident’s comments in mind, we have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident and complete a further inspection.
The landlord’s evidence shows that it mostly responded to the resident in a reasonable way. It supported the resident in line with its policy and took proactive steps to complete remedial works. However, there were some communication failures and the 3 month delay in completing the inspection, which revealed a severe case of damp and mould, amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £300 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of damp and mould. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Pest infestation

The landlords pest control policy states that tenants are usually responsible for infestation of pests, however discretion can be applied when a tenant is deemed vulnerable.
On 7 November 2023, the resident reported a pest infestation. The resident said that a new boiler had not been boxed-in, which had left entrance points for rodents. The heating team advised that the boiler casement was appropriately sealed. Despite this, the landlord agreed to investigate the matter and acted appropriately in line with its stance on supporting vulnerable residents. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
On 13 November 2023, the landlord instructed an independent pest control service to investigate signs of rodent activity, lay baits and monitor until the infestation ceased. On 20 September 2023, the pest controller advised the landlord that although tracking dust had been applied, it was “difficult to ascertain the source of entry points because the property was cluttered”, it recommended decluttering for the treatment to be effective. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the outcome of the investigation.
On 21 November 2023, the TSO communicated with the resident regarding the outcome of the survey and advised that the pest controller must have access to all areas of potential entry for rodents. Therefore, all areas required clearing before proofing works could commence. The TSO offered the resident help and support to clear the property, if required. The landlord acted appropriately and in-line with its policy on supporting vulnerable residents.
On 9 February 2024, the resident said that the landlord’s staff had called him a “hoarder” as a result of the findings from the pest infestation. There was no evidence that this was the term used, however it was clear that the landlord and pest controller felt the property required some decluttering for an effective treatment and eradication of the pest issue. It was right of the TSO to clarify this with the resident during a meeting on 17 April 2024.
On 26 February 2024, the resident disputed the information provided by the pest controller in November 2023 and said enough access was provided. The landlord was entitled to rely upon the advice of its pest controller, as it was the expert in the area being investigated; and unless evidence is provided which is contrary to the contractors’ report, the landlord would have no reason to dispute the advice provided.
On 17 April 2024, the TSO visited the resident at home. The outcome confirmed that the pest infestation was resolved. The resident was advised that the TSO would remain his contact should any further issues arise in the future. This demonstrated a good level of service from the landlord and provided a single person contact for the resident.
Overall, the evidence indicates that the landlord responded to the residents reports of a pest infestation appropriately, in a timely manner and in line with its policy. It agreed to investigate the rodent activity, offered support to the resident to clear the property, and visited the resident to ensure the infestation was eradicated. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.

Complaint Handling.

The landlords complaint policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints responded to within 20 working days.
Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 November 2023 and again, on 7 December 2023. It was not until the resident raised a third complaint on 20 December 2023, that the landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded accordingly. This should not have been necessary and is unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 January 2024, which was 26 working days after the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 26 February 2024 and the landlord provided its response on 15 April 2024. This was 35 working days after the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy.
The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the late response within its stage 1 or 2 complaint response and therefore did not identify learning or actions it would take to prevent a similar situation happening again, this was not appropriate.
Having considered all the circumstances, we have found maladministration in relation to the landlords complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Provided a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident a total of £450, which comprises of:
  1. £300 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  3. Compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
3. Contacted the resident regarding the on-going damp and mould. The landlord should instruct a qualified professional to complete an up-to-date damp and mould inspection of the property.
4. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord must complete an action plan. The action plan must be provided to the resident and this service and include a list of all works required and a timeline for outstanding repairs.
5. Provided details to the resident of how to make a claim to its liability insurer for the damaged bed.