Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202503727)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her 4 children, 1 of whom is asthmatic. The property has high levels of moisture. The resident considers the landlord should expediate her and her family’s move into a new property to resolve this situation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Overcrowding.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled:
      1. The resident’s reports of overcrowding.
      2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould.

5. The landlord delayed repeatedly in raising and completing works to address damp and mould in the property. It also failed to meaningfully communicate with the resident throughout the period in question.

Overcrowding.

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of overcrowding appropriately. It signposted her to the Local Authority (LA) to sign up to its housing register. It also approved a management transfer for her to relocate once a suitably property was made available.

Complaint handling.

7. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint as per its policy at both stages.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 delayed in completing works to address damp and mould in the property from 25 July 2024 until the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 23 January 2025. We can see it attended the property on 25 July 2024 and applied mould treatments and anti-mould paint in the bedrooms and living room. However, it raised further mould treatments in the bathroom and living room following this appointment but failed to follow up on either job. We would expect the landlord to have completed these works as per its 28 day routine repair timescales, and its failure to do so likely caused the resident distress.
9. Following her stage 1 complaint the resident continued to report damp and mould and to explain the impact she thought it was having on her child’s asthma. She also provided a letter from her GP which emphasized this.
10. While we have considered the distress this may have caused the resident, this investigation will not consider any potential impact of damp and mould on the resident or her children’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this part to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.
11. The landlord inspected the property on 19 February 2025 and identified mould in 4 out of 5 rooms, and condensation in every room. It also identified the carpets were wet from condensation. However, it did not raise any works to address these issues. This was poor and delayed any resolution of the situation. The lack of action is also concerning given the resident had repeatedly stressed her concerns about her 3 year old’s asthma.
12. The landlord needs to ensure that it provided the resident and any visitors with a home free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
13. Following its stage 1 response on 27 February 2025 we can see evidence that the landlord began to consider possible ways to address the issue. We can see it considered the feasibility of installing a dehumidifier, as per its damp and mould and policy, on 4 March 2025. However, it decided against it due to the likely effect this would have on 1 of the children’s eczema. We can also see the landlord discussed this with the resident and she agreed that it would worsen her child’s condition. The landlord acted sympathetically by considering the resident’s circumstances here.
14. However, internal emails over the next month then indicate that the landlord had largely decided there was nothing that could be done to improve the situation since it was mainly caused by the overcrowding of the property. It accordingly made no attempts to raise or complete any related works during this month.
15. While we accept that the overcrowding of the property likely played a role in the high levels of moisture, the landlord was still responsible for taking appropriate steps to manage any damp and mould in the property until it was able to relocate the resident. It is unacceptable that it failed to take any action for over a month following the 19 February inspection, and we consider this delayed any resolution and likely compounded the resident’s distress.
16. On 3 April 2024 the landlord then raised the following works to address damp and mould in the property:
    1. Install draught excluders to doors and windows.
    2. Replace carpets.
    3. Install underlay flooring.
    4. Complete mould washes and apply anti-mould paint.
17. The landlord raised these as routine works and so its 28 day timescales applied. However, it did not complete them until 27 July 2025. This was 114 days beyond its timescales. There is also no indication the landlord suitably informed the resident about these planned works at any stage during this period or via its final response on 17 April 2025. Its final response only commits to “authorise necessary damp and mould works.” This was a missed opportunity to update the resident about its plan and reassure her that it had decided on a strategy to mitigate the issue.
18. Ultimately, the landlord delayed repeatedly in raising and completing works to address damp and mould throughout the property from 25 July 2024 to 27 July 2025. It also failed to keep the resident suitably informed throughout this period. The landlord apologised for delays at both complaint stages but did not offer any compensation.
19. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £600 to £1000 are appropriate to put right failings which have caused significant, but not permanent, impact to residents. In calculating the correct sum of compensation we have considered the length of the delay in completing works. We have also considered time stamped images the resident supplied us and the landlord throughout this period which show that the resident spent several months living in a property with soaked carpets and apparent mould in most rooms. We have considered the distress this likely caused, and how the resident likely experienced this distress more intensely due to concerns about her child’s asthma.
20. We have also balanced this against the positive actions the landlord took to address the situation via repairs it completed in July 2024 and July 2025. Having done so, we consider a figure at the mid-point of our range is appropriate to put things right. Therefore, we will order the landlord pays the resident £800 compensation. We will also order the landlord to update the resident on the progress of its current action plan to address any damp and mould following its 6 November 2025 inspection.

21. The landlord’s transfer policy sets out that it will only approve management transfers for residents who meet the statutory threshold for overcrowding. It also notes that it will provide advice and assistance to those experiencing overcrowding.
22. The resident first reported the property was overcrowded on 23 January 2025. The landlord advised her it would place her on the transfer list in its stage 1 response on 27 February 2025 and issued the required forms for her to complete the following day. These forms included a section which encouraged the resident to sign up to the Local Authority (LA)’s register since it had limited housing stock. Therefore, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the LA as per its policy.
23. The resident completed the forms and returned them by 14 March 2025. In its stage 2 response the landlord then advised that it had approved a management transfer and that she would be prioritized for a 4 bedroom property should 1 become free in the areas she noted on the application forms. While we note there are no records which set out the reasoning for this decision in detail, it seems clear that the landlord decided that the resident met the relevant threshold for overcrowding, and that it added her to its management transfer list as per its policy.
24. We recognise the resident is frustrated by the length of time it is taking for a suitable property to become available. However, we do not consider this is due to any failings on the landlord’s part. Ultimately, we consider the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of overcrowding by approving her management transfer and updating her of this.
25. The resident has also complained that, since the stage 2 response, the landlord has not issued any further updates. Given this, we will recommend the landlord updates her on her position in the transfer queue.

26. The resident first complained on 23 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged this 5 working days later on 30 January 2025 as per its policy. On 13 February 2025 it extended the deadline by 10 working days to allow it to consider the results of the 19 February 2025 inspection in its response. This was an appropriate means of ensuring its response was suitably informed. It then issued its response within this timescale on 27 February 2025.
27. The landlord also addressed the resident’s stage 2 response within its 20 working day timescale.

Learning

Communication

28. The landlord missed opportunities at various stages, and most notably in its complaint responses, to keep the resident meaningfully informed about what it intended to do to address the damp and mould. The landlord should ensure it keeps residents updated about the progress of works and how it can mitigate any ongoing impact of delays on its residents.

Record keeping

29. The landlord’s record keeping related to how it reached its decision to approve the resident’s management transfer was not appropriately detailed. While we note this did not appear to have any meaningful impact on the outcome, we would encourage the landlord to ensure it keeps suitably detailed records of decisions it makes about allocation of its properties.