London Borough of Islington (202409957)

Background

1. The resident lived in a ground floor flat within a converted terraced house. In 2022 she reported that she could not open her windows because they had moved out of alignment. In 2023 the adjoining terraced house began extensive renovation works, which she believed caused movement in her flat. She also reported damp and mould during this period. She has since moved to a new property but says the landlord failed to handle these concerns properly.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. Reports of faulty windows.
   2. Concerns of subsidence.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of faulty windows.
   2. Severe Maladministration in how the landlord handled concerns of subsidence.
   3. Maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of damp and mould.
   4. Maladministration in how the landlord handled the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of faulty windows reports

4. The landlord took too long to address repeated reports that the windows were not functional and causing heat loss, and it did not consider the safety or living-condition risks this created. It also failed to check the resident’s needs or respond in line with its repair timescales.

The handling of subsidence concerns

5. The landlord did not monitor the worsening subsidence, delayed essential actions after accepting the resident’s home was unfit, and failed to communicate clearly. It also did not follow through on agreed temporary move arrangements. These failings caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.

The handling of damp and mould reports

6. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s damp and mould reports or assess whether the unresolved basement problems were contributing to issues in her flat. This fell below its damp and mould policy requirements.

The handling of the complaint

7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued outside the timescales set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and did not address all points she raised. Its stage 2 response was also inaccurate because it did not reflect its own records.

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. There were several delays in the landlord’s response to reports that the living room windows would not open and close. Its records show the resident first reported the issue in November 2022, but repairs were not completed until April 2023, 5 months later. The resident reported the issue had returned in February 2024, and repairs were only completed in May 2024, 3 months later. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing external window frames and for keeping the structure and exterior in repair. Its repairs policy also requires it to respond to urgent repairs that affect day-to-day living within 24 hours.
9. Given the windows could not open and close, the issue reasonably met the policy’s definition of an urgent repair. While the landlord eventually met its tenancy obligation, its response significantly exceeded its urgent-repair timescales.
10. Landlords must also consider safety risks when deciding how to respond to reported defects. The statutory framework for recognising those risks is the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004. The hazards the system identifies, such as the risk of harm from intruders and the risk of harm from difficulties in escape, reflect the concerns the resident raised about security and fire safety. Windows that do not open or close are relevant to both hazards, so the landlord needed to take these risks into account. There is no evidence it did so, and even if it had, its delays to resolve the issue did not demonstrate to the resident that it was taking those concerns seriously. As a result, the resident lived for an unreasonable period with windows that did not function properly.
11. Alongside the functionality of the windows, the resident reported draughts and heat loss. Between April and August 2023, the landlord’s operatives recorded that the living room window had large gaps, was shifting out of alignment, and later confirmed it needed a full overhaul. This pattern of movement reasonably indicated that the resident’s living conditions needed further assessment, including whether the gaps were contributing to heat loss or discomfort. Government expectations set through standards such as the Decent Homes Standard require social homes to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, which depends on effective insulation and the ability to retain heat. The repeated reports of gaps and misalignment in the living room window meant the property was at risk of falling below this standard.
12. Despite this, the landlord’s records do not show that it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about draughts or checked whether she needed support, even though it knew she had a medical condition that made her more sensitive to temperature changes. Repairs to infill the gaps and adjust the living room window were not completed until May 2024, 18 months after the issue was raised. This left the resident reporting ongoing draughts and heat loss for an extended period, without the landlord checking the impact on her living conditions.
13. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered compensation which included £100 to reflect the additional cost of the resident heating her home. However, it did not explain how it calculated this amount or seek any evidence, such as the resident’s energy bills, to understand the actual increase in her heating costs. Asking for this information would have allowed the landlord to make a direct comparison with previous periods and to offer accurate restorative compensation. This approach would have also been in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. These say landlords should ‘be fair’ and ‘put things right’ when resolving disputes.
14. The absence of any calculation or reasoning means the landlord’s redress did not fairly reflect the resident’s likely losses and did not put her back in the position she would have been in had her concerns been handled appropriately.
15. The resident has since moved to another property, which means obtaining past energy bills for an accurate comparison is unlikely to be practical at this stage. Therefore, based on the evidence available, the extended duration of the issue and the impact described, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of her window reports. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which suggests awards between £100 and £600 where a landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident.
16. In light of the observations above, we have found maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of faulty windows.

17. The landlord’s records indicate that renovation works next door began around July 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response, it fairly acknowledged that after it noted internal cracks during an inspection in August 2023, it should have proactively monitored the resident’s flat to keep on top of the situation. This was a positive step, as it showed the landlord recognised the importance of learning from outcomes. However, its admission also makes clear that it missed an early opportunity to track a developing subsidence problem and manage the risks to the resident. Without proactive monitoring, the landlord had limited oversight of how the condition of the property was changing, leaving the resident to identify and report the deterioration herself.
18. The landlord then unreasonably delayed acting in line with its obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. When it surveyed her flat in early January 2024, it identified serious structural movement, significant cracking, and recommended that the resident be moved. However, the resident did not move until July 2024, 6 months later. In the interim, the landlord did not carry out any internal repairs until May 2024, even though further inspections recorded gaps in the walls large enough to fit a hand through. The landlord said it delayed this work because it expected the resident to be rehoused sooner, but this was not a reasonable position. Its repairing obligation continued to apply while it considered alternative accommodation, and it still needed to take timely interim steps to manage the defects identified.
19. The resident also raised concerns that pests could enter through widening gaps in her walls. Although the landlord told us it had no formal pest reports from her, her complaint put it on notice to investigate, particularly given she lived on the ground floor of a converted house. Its own records show it treated the basement and external areas for rats and mice around the same time as the resident’s reports, following reports from another flat in the same building. The landlord therefore knew pests were present nearby but did not assess whether the resident’s home was affected. This lack of follow-up and acknowledgment likely added to her sense of being ignored during an already distressing period.
20. The landlord did not communicate clearly or consistently with the resident throughout its handling of the subsidence concerns. After the January 2024 survey recommended that she be moved, it did not share its findings or official position until it issued its stage 1 complaint response 2 months later. During this period, the resident repeatedly chased for updates and raised a formal complaint because she was understandably worried about her safety and did not know what the landlord intended to do. There is no explanation why the major works transfer forms were only sent to her in March 2024, despite the recommendation being made in January 2024, and although the landlord later apologised for the further delay in passing the documents to the correct department, this still contributed to unnecessary uncertainty for the resident.
21. Additionally, an internal case note shows a staff member describing the repair records as unclear and trying to ‘make sense of them,’ further supporting that the case was not managed in a coordinated way. This level of communication and coordination was not reasonable given the seriousness of the issues and left the resident feeling unsupported and without essential information at a time of significant concern.
22. The landlord arranged a temporary move for the resident in July 2024 and, as part of those decant arrangements, agreed to move her belongings into storage and cover the costs. Its records do no show that it followed through on this commitment. The resident later reported in November 2024 that her belongings remained in the flat and had deteriorated.
23. The landlord’s failure to act on its agreement or keep the resident updated caused further distress and inconvenience at a time when she had already been displaced due to suspected subsidence. From November 2024 onwards, the available evidence indicates there were availability issues between the resident and removal company, so the landlord will need to investigate events after this point and advise the resident how she should progress any insurance for damaged belongings. However, the lack of follow-through and communication up to November 2024 was not a reasonable response in the circumstances.
24. Finally, the landlord offered the resident £875 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the handling of the issues raised in her complaint, and a further £50 for the delay in processing her transfer form, bringing its total offer to £925. Of this, £100 related to the additional cost of heating her home and has already been discounted in our window assessment, and £25 related to complaint-handling delays, which has also been considered separately. This leaves £800 attributed to the landlord’s handling of subsidence concerns.
25. The landlord’s compensation offer does not provide fair redress for the failings identified in this section of the report. Its records confirm it considered the flat ‘not fit for habitation’ in March 2024 (when it issued the major works transfer forms), but the resident did not move out of the property until July 2024. We have therefore ordered the landlord to make a loss-of-enjoyment payment of £331.41, calculated at 15% of the weekly rent over this 4-month period. This is an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity, rather than a rent refund.
26. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 for distress and inconvenience. This reflects the seriousness of the failings, including the prolonged uncertainty, lack of updates, missed opportunities to monitor the developing subsidence, poor coordination of the transfer process, failure to respond when the resident raised concerns about pests, and the landlord’s failure to follow through on its agreement regarding her belongings. These issues warrant the higher end of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance scale, which suggests awards between £600 and £1,000 where a landlord’s failings significantly impact a resident.
27. The total award of £1,331.41 more accurately reflects the combined impact of the landlord’s failings and is necessary to put things right.
28. Considering these factors, we have determined severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns of subsidence.

29. The landlord inspected damp in the building several times between December 2022 and November 2023. Those inspections identified recurring water entering the basement, defective brickwork in the house next door, blocked gullies and foul-smelling wastewater running through the communal area. Taken together, these findings pointed to an ongoing source of damp affecting the building. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating each report, but the repeat pattern showed it had not identified or resolved the underlying cause of water ingress, which its damp and mould policy confirms should be a priority.
30. The first report of damp we have seen from the resident was in her stage 1 complaint in February 2024. She also referred to the unresolved issue in the basement. This showed the damp problem had moved beyond the communal area and into her living space. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord arranged a new inspection or assessed whether the unresolved basement issues were contributing to the damp in the resident’s flat. Under its damp and mould policy, once a resident reports damp, the landlord should check for any outstanding repairs linked to previous damp reports and act on them within 3 working days, or arrange a repeat survey within 20 working days. The landlord did not do this, which meant it missed an opportunity to understand and address whether damp was affecting the resident’s home.
31. The landlord later appointed an independent structural engineer in June 2024, who confirmed the basement brickwork was ‘unnaturally damp’ most likely due to a leak in the drainage pipe. This supported the resident’s concern that the basement water issues had continued and were capable of contributing to damp inside her flat. While we recognise that by this stage the landlord was in the process of rehousing the resident, this did not remove its responsibility to assess the impact on her living conditions and, where appropriate, offer redress for any failings identified. However, it did not do this.
32. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we consider £300 to be appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s damp and mould reports over the 5-month period before she moved out.
33. In light of the observations above, we have found maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of damp and mould.

34. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
    2. It issued its stage 1 complaint response 17 working days after the resident raised her complaint, which was significantly outside the Code’s 10-working-day target. The Code also requires landlords to communicate at agreed intervals when responses will fall outside these timescales. There is no evidence the landlord did this, so the landlord did not meet the Code’s expectations for keeping resident’s informed during complaint delays.
    3. The stage 1 response did not meaningfully address the resident’s concerns about damp, mould and pests. The response was brief and generic and showed no empathy or understanding of the issues she raised. This fell short of the Code’s requirement for landlords to give clear, evidence-based responses that directly address all points raised in a complaint.
    4. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 1 day outside the Code’s 20-working-day target. Although this was a slight delay, we have seen no evidence that this caused any detriment to the resident.
    5. The stage 2 response said the resident’s flat was ‘structurally safe’, but the landlord’s own records show staff could not make sense of the case history and, a week earlier, it had already concluded the property was not for habitation and that she needed to be moved. The response was therefore contradictory. Under the Code, landlords must base their responses on a proper review of the evidence and provide accurate information. The landlord did not do so in this case.
    6. The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s transfer application complaint met the Code’s 10-day target and addressed all points raised.
    7. The landlord offered the resident £25 for the delay in issuing the stage 1 response. This does not reflect the wider failing we have identified. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we consider £200 to be a more appropriate amount to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
35. In light of these findings, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Coordination between teams

36. This case shows the value of clear coordination between surveyors, repairs staff and housing officers so that emerging structural issues are managed consistency. The landlord should review how it shares information so that it supports timely and joined-up decisions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The difficulties staff reported in understanding the repair history illustrate the need for clear and accessible record keeping. Stronger oversight would help staff track developments, understand past actions, and manage complex cases more effectively.