London Borough of Islington (202443984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443984

London Borough of Islington

31 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom basement and ground floor flat in a converted terraced house. The resident’s neighbour, a leaseholder, lives on the first and second floors of the property. The building itself has a main roof and 2 flat roofs. There is a small flat roof and a section of lead flashing on the external wall above the resident’s living room at basement level. There is a second larger flat roof on the first floor.
For context, the landlord’s contractor completed work to the property around September/October 2022, although it was unclear exactly what work was completed. The resident started disrepair proceedings. However, the claim did not proceed to court. The landlord sent its disrepair surveyor who:
1. Raised a list of internal and external repairs on 7 February 2023.
2. Said external repairs should be completed by its roofing contractor.
A roofing surveyor attended on 17 March 2023. 2 days later a roofer attended and completed minor repairs identified by the disrepair surveyor. The roofing surveyor provided a survey to the landlord dated 21 March 2023. The survey:
1. Said “the asphalt on the gutters could not be renewed [raised by the disrepair surveyor] because of the fire escape.”
2. Recommended repairs to:
  1. The pointing.
  2. The basement level flat roof.
The resident complained on 2 April 2023 in relation to the landlord’s communication and repair delays. It was unclear what happened to this complaint as no responses were provided to us. The resident chased the landlord on 19 April 2023 after not receiving a response.
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 6 June 2023 and completed a liquid coating to the basement level flat roof. It noted “another contractor had been on site [on 19 March 2023] and completed the remainder of the works [raised by the disrepair surveyor].”
The landlord’s contractor attended on 19 June 2023 to start internal repairs. The repairs were completed on 4 July 2023. Another landlord surveyor inspected the work on 27 July 2023 and the landlord closed its legal case.
The resident complained on 21 September 2023, however it was unclear exactly what she said. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 October 2023 where it did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. Thank you for the complaint in relation to “damp coming into [your] room” and previous “rushed repairs [carried out in June and July 2023].”
2. Its contractors had completed repairs raised by its surveyor.
3. It had arranged for another surveyor inspection following the further reports of mould.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 November 2023 and said:
1. The damp:
  1. Had returned and was “worse than before.”
  2. Was spreading.
2. She was told a surveyor would contact her.

3 days later, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property.

It was unclear exactly when the resident escalated the complaint. But the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 7 November 2023, where it upheld the complaint. It said:
1. Its contractor had completed repairs to the property raised by its disrepair surveyor on 4 July 2023. This included to the roof, followed by internal decorative works.
2. The repairs were signed off by a surveyor who felt the quality of work was “acceptable” and “no further action was required.”
3. Its contractor inspected the bathroom and kitchen pipe work for potential leaks affecting the bedroom and living room. But no faults were found.
4. It apologised for delays sending a surveyor following the stage 1 response. It said this due to an “oversight”, and it had arranged for a surveyor to attend.
5. It acknowledged further inconvenience caused to the resident as damp had returned. It offered £400 compensation made up of:
  1. £300 for inconvenience.
  2. £100 for time and effort raising a complaint.
A landlord surveyor completed a damp and mould inspection on 10 November 2023. The survey:
1. Said there:
  1. “May be some issues with the lead flashing installation [to the basement level wall].
  2. Were visible signs of damp to left hand living room wall thought to be caused by water penetration.
  3. Was no evidence of kitchen leaks.”
2. Recommended:
  1. A mould wash and bath sealant repairs in the bathroom.
  2. Repairs to lead flashing to the basement level flat roof above the living room.
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 2 January 2024 but did not complete any repairs. The resident emailed the landlord 12 days later after not hearing anything further. She said:
1. “She felt the repairs carried out in June/July 2023 were rushed.
2. The damp had returned and was worse than it ever was.
3. Plaster was now coming off the wall.
4. The roofer that attended [on 2 January 2024] said:
  1. He needed to order special lead and previous lead work was not done properly.
  2. The landlord would contact her.
  3. External repairs should be completed before internal repairs.”
The resident chased the landlord on 21 and 28 January 2024 after not hearing anything further. The next day, the landlord scheduled a surveyor to attend on 1 March 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 February 2024. She said:
1. “She had received a call from a [roofing] contractor on 6 February 2024 to say he was at the address.
2. She then received a text which said the repair was re-booked for 8 February 2024.
3. The roofer:
  1. Attended but could not complete the work as the lead had not been ordered.
  2. Said he would ask to attend with the surveyor on 1 March 2024.”

The resident chased the landlord on 24 February 2024 after no response to her email. She raised another complaint 3 days later.

The evidence suggests a surveyor attended on 1 March 2024 and raised repairs on 14 March 2024. The landlord’s contractor checked the bathroom pipework for leaks on 4 April 2024.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response in relation to the poor service the resident had received on 13 March 2024. It upheld the complaint and said:
1. Its surveyor had attended on 10 November 2023 and recommended repairs to the bathroom and lead flashing.
2. A roofer:
  1. Attended as arranged on 2 January 2024 but did not have the lead to complete the repair.
  2. Attended on 6 February 2024 but said the resident was unaware of the appointment, so rescheduled it for 2 days later.
  3. Attended on 8 February 2024 and suggested a joint visit with the surveyor planned for 1 March 2024.
3. It wanted to offer £283.30 compensation made up of:
  1. £25 for inconvenience.
  2. £25 for poor communication.
  3. £25 for time and effort to complain.
  4. £208.30 for delay in completing the roof repair (£41.66 x 5 months December 2023 to April 2024).

The resident declined the offer in an email to the landlord on 25 March 2024.

The resident emailed the landlord on 5 May 2024 and said:
1. A roofing contractor completed the work to the flashing on 1 May 2024.
2. The roofer had said:
  1. “He did not think the lead flashing was the cause of the damp.
  2. He fixed a problem with the pipe going into the wall.
  3. The plaster needed to be removed from the living room wall to see if the damp dried out.”
3. She wanted to know when the interior work would take place.
The resident raised another complaint on 7 May 2024 after the landlord said it could not see any further work required to the property following the roofer’s repair. The landlord upheld the complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 May 2024. It said:
1. Repairs were raised following a surveyor inspection in November 2023. The bathroom repairs were completed on 7 December 2023.
2. In relation to the roof repairs raised by the surveyor:
  1. The repair was scheduled for 2 January 2024. The landlord attended that day and ordered the materials required for the repair.
  2. A joint inspection took place on 8 February 2024 between the roofing team and damp surveyor. They noted “[damp] patches on the old chimney breast in the front [living room].”
  3. The landlord collected the materials required for the roof repair on 17 March 2024 and the work was completed on 1 May 2024.
3. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 23 May 2024 to assess internal repairs.
4. It apologised for the delays, lack of action and the inconvenience caused.
5. It offered £174.98 compensation made up of:
  1. £50 for the inconvenience.
  2. £124.98 made up of (£41.66 x 3 months 8 February 2024 to 1 May 2024) for service failure.
A surveyor attended as arranged on 23 May 2024 and:
1. Said there was leak staining to the living room chimney breast.
2. Said he suspected a defect with the chimney at roof level which a roofer would need to assess.
3. Completed a dye test which confirmed the leak was not internal.

The surveyor requested a letter be sent to the leaseholder in the property above to arrange access to the first floor flat roof following the survey.

The resident chased on 9 June 2024 and escalated the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation but sent a holding response on 8 July 2024, in which it said:
1. Work to remedy any defects suspected to be from or around the chimney had been booked for 11 July 2024.
2. Internal damp issues had been put on hold until the external repairs were completed.
3. It would contact the resident within 10 days from the date of the roofing inspection report.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 July 2024 and said:
1. The roofer attended on 11 July 2024:
  1. But disagreed with the surveyor the problem was from the chimney.
  2. Filled some holes in the brickwork (unclear exactly where).
2. The damp had continued to spread.

She confirmed she wanted the complaint escalating 4 days later. However, there was no evidence of any further communication until 13 August 2024 when the resident emailed again and said the damp was still spreading and the situation had not improved.

The landlord’s records showed a roofer attended on 20 August 2024 and inspected the chimney on the first-floor flat roof which was accessed via the neighbour’s window. The roofer said there were “no roof works required and was sure it was an internal pipe causing the damp.”
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 3 September 2024, where it upheld the complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for the distress caused by the situation.
2. It acknowledged the repairs had taken “a considerable length of time to complete” but said “this can be the case when access to another property is required.”
3. It increased the compensation offer from the stage 1 to £487 (sic) made up of:
  1. £300 for the inconvenience.
  2. £166.64 for delays completing the repairs (£41.66 x 3 months = £124.98) and £41.66 rounded up for £42 for 1 month from July to August 2024.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2024 to chase. She said:
1. She would not accept the compensation offer until she knew the damp was resolved.
2. She was told she would be contacted following a call on 12 September 2024 but had not been contacted.
It was unclear whether the resident was contacted however she contacted us on 31 January 2025.
The resident chased the damp issue with the landlord on 13 April 2025. The landlord initially raised repairs for flaking plaster and a mould wash. But after the resident drew attention to the property history, it arranged for its leak team to attend on 23 May 2025. The leak team:
1. Said roofers had said it was a plumbing issue.
2. Completed a dye test in the bathroom and confirmed there were no leaks.
3. Noted the leak “appeared to be from the [chimney] stack.”
4. Suspected the area affected by damp may have previously contained a chimney which had since been blocked off.
5. Said this could cause condensation in the wall.
6. Said a surveyor was scheduled to visit on 5 June 2025.
A landlord surveyor attended and:
1. Found:
  1. 3 areas (bedroom, living room and bathroom) affected by damp and mould.
  2. A disconnected condense pipe behind the washing machine from the boiler had caused water related damages to the rear bedroom.
  3. A few possibilities as to the cause of damp patches on the chimney breast in the living room.
2. Raised investigative work to the living room ceiling. The surveyor thought there was a cold mains water supply concealed which could be leaking.
3. Raised a mould treatment to the bathroom ceiling while access was arranged to the neighbour’s property above to check for leaks.
4. Said further chimney investigations would continue.
The surveyor re-attended on 15 July 2025 and completed a third dye test. The landlord provided an update to us 3 days later. It said:
1. It had completed all actions raised by its surveyor.
2. There was no evidence of the dye. So, the surveyor had said “the damp in the living room could be excess hygroscopic moisture due to having the bath directly above and excess moisture laden air.”
In a call with us on 22 July 2025, the resident said:
1. The lower damp patch seemed “much wetter” since recent heavy rain.
2. There was a damp/chemical smell which had got worse since the dye test and rain.
3. The exact cause of the damp had not been found so internal repairs have not been completed.
4. She does not want to temporarily move while repairs are completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident emailed the landlord on 9 June 2024 and said she was under investigation at the hospital for shortness of breath and she hoped it was not connected to the damp in the living room. In her complaint to us 7 months later, she said she had been diagnosed with a chest condition which she had been told can be affected by damp. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. However, the resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
There is nothing to suggest that the damp issues at the property have been caused by separate leaks. Therefore, this investigation will start from February 2023 when repairs were raised by the landlord’s disrepair surveyor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth is a potential category 1 hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
In November 2022 the landlord completed a project in response to our Spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021, which was positive. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure approved in August 2023 says:
1. Following a report of damp and mould, it will check for and resolve any water leaks or water penetration problems which may be the cause of damp and mould.
2. It will only consider condensation as a factor contributing to damp and mould once checks for leaks or water penetration have been completed.
3. A new damp inspection will be raised once checks have been completed that there are no outstanding work orders relating to damp and mould and all recommendations from any previous damp inspections within the previous 6 months carried out.
4. Any recommended work needed to resolve an identified or suspected water leak or water penetration problem, defective ventilation equipment or fixture or heating fault or any other works identified which fall within the scope of the repairs policy will be raised by the surveyor within 3 working days of the survey being carried out.
The landlord’s repairs policy says:
1. Sometimes damp problems in the home are the result of a leak or water penetration from outside the property. The landlord is responsible to repair water leaks and water penetration issues affecting a property.
2. Residents will be given advice on how to manage condensation when condensation is identified as the cause of damp and mould.
3. It will complete:
  1. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. Planned repairs (used for high value repair jobs which are often complicated to complete. Examples include works linked to a legal case or works requiring leaseholder consultation) within 60 working days.
After the repairs were raised by the disrepair surveyor, the roofing contractor completed a further survey of the flat roof on 17 March 2023. But it was unclear why this was, as the disrepair surveyor had noted the roofing contractor was to complete the required repairs. However, some of the external repairs were completed on 19 March 2023. The evidence suggests this was in response to the repairs raised by the disrepair surveyor, 29 working days earlier. This was in line with the landlord’s planned repairs response timeframe. The roofing contractor returned to complete further repairs on 6 June 2023. This was also within the landlord’s 60 working day response time for planned repairs, which was reasonable.
It took 104 working days to complete the internal repairs raised by the disrepair surveyor. This was outside the landlord’s planned repairs timeframe, which was a failing. It was unclear what the reason for the delay was. It is possible the landlord wanted to wait to see whether the external repairs completed in March and June 2023 addressed the damp. If this was the case, there was no evidence the resident was kept updated. This caused the resident to chase and led to a complaint, which was a failing.
The internal work was post-inspected by a landlord surveyor in July 2023. The resident’s section of the post-inspection form says “you do not have to sign this form. In doing so you tell that, as far as you can see, the work that needed to be done to your home has been carried out.” The resident signed the form but added handwritten comments “the work was rushed” and “no exterior work [was] completed.” However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of the surveyor. And given the resident signed the form, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume no further work was required at this point.
It was unclear exactly when the damp returned to the living room wall. The resident did not complain until almost 2 months after the repairs raised by the disrepair surveyor were completed. However, it is noted that weather records show little rainfall throughout August and September 2023. But it rained heavily on 20 September 2023, the day before the resident raised her complaint. Once the complaint was raised, the landlord used its complaints process to try and put things right and said it would arrange for a surveyor to attend, which was positive. However, it did not do so. This caused delays in a surveyor attending. It also caused further inconvenience for the resident as she had to chase over 3 weeks later after she was not contacted.
After the resident chased, the landlord promptly arranged for a surveyor to attend, which was reasonable. Bathroom repairs raised by the surveyor were completed within the landlord’s routine repair timeframe, which was positive. However, the lead flashing repairs raised in the same survey were not completed until 117 working days later, over double the landlord’s timescale for a planned repair. This was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to wait for repairs to be completed. The evidence showed delays were caused by failing to order materials promptly. And a failure by the landlord to monitor the repair and follow up with either the resident or its contractor.
While waiting for the lead flashing repair, the evidence showed the resident chased on multiple occasions, had the inconvenience of failed appointments, and continued to live with worsening damp. It was therefore appropriate the landlord acknowledged its service failure in relation to this repair in its complaint response dated 13 March 2024. After the complaint, the landlord raised a repair for further checks to the bathroom on 14 March 2024. The checks were completed within its routine repair timeframe. This was positive and showed the landlord was attempting to find a source of the damp. However, given the delays completing the lead flashing repair, it would have been reasonable to prioritise the bathroom and lead flashing repairs for the resident. But there was no evidence the landlord did so, which was unreasonable.
Following a further complaint in May 2024, the landlord continued to try and put things right by arranging for another surveyor to attend. However, it was again left for the resident to chase the repairs throughout June, July and August 2024 which caused inconvenience. There were further delays caused by the roofing contractor that attended in July 2024 disagreeing with the surveyor and meant another appointment had to be arranged in August. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is responsible for the repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a further failing.
We acknowledge the landlord has taken steps to try and investigate and resolve for damp issue for the resident. It has carried out repairs to try and address the damp in:
1. March 2023 (basement level flat roof and pointing)
2. June/July 2023 (basement level flat roof, inspected kitchen and bathroom pipework)
3. December 2023 (minor bathroom repairs)
4. April 2024 (bathroom pipework checked again)
5. May 2024 (basement level external wall lead flashing, small problem with pipe going into wall, dye test to confirm leak was not internal)
6. June 2024 (basement level flat roof repair)
7. July 2024 (pointing repairs)
8. August 2024 (inspected chimney on first floor flat roof)
9. May 2025 (completed another dye test)
10. June/July 2025 (bathroom repairs/dye test (again)/inspected property above)

We also acknowledge the landlord has recognised some failings and used its complaint process to try and put things right, which was positive. It has previously offered a total of £1,170.30 compensation across the 3 complaints responses provided to us. The compensation, in addition to the surveyor visits and previous repairs showed the landlord has tried to investigate the cause of the damp. However, the fact the resident raised 3 separate complaints to progress the same issue indicate failings.

There evidence showed there:
1. Were delays:
  1. Completing the internal repairs raised by the disrepair surveyor.
  2. Getting a surveyor to attend after the stage 1 response in October 2023.
  3. Completing repairs to the lead flashing between January and May 2024.
  4. Raising repairs following the survey in March 2024.
  5. Inspecting the chimney on the first floor flat roof.
  6. Identifying the issue with the condense pipe which caused damp in the rear bedroom.
2. Was no evidence that the landlord communicated effectively:
  1. With the resident. The resident chased for updates on 19 April 2023, 3 November 2023, 14, 21, and 28 January 2024, 24 February 2024, 9 June 2024, 14 July 2024, 13 August 2024, 27 September 2024 and 13 April 2025.
  2. With its contractors. The evidence suggests a lack of clear communication between the disrepair surveyor and roofing contractor around February/March 2023. And further communication issues in February 2024 a year later when the landlord tried to complete the lead flashing repair.
  3. Were issues with the surveyors. We accept the landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyors in trying to address the cause of the damp. But the evidence showed at least 6 different surveyors, as well as the landlord’s leak team, have attended the property between February 2023 and July 2025. While it was positive the landlord sent surveyors, the amount of different surveyors, coupled with poor communication, has resulted in a lack of continuity resulting in a disjointed approach in addressing the damp. The cause of which, has still has not been identified.
Overall, the landlord has been reactive, rather than proactive, in trying to resolve the damp issue for the resident. Its lack of urgency or proactive involvement in the repairs process, failure to take responsibility for the damp and the repairs, coupled with contractor failings and poor communication, has left the resident with damp for almost 2.5 years. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience and affected her enjoyment of the property over a significant time period, which was a failing.
The landlord offered a total of £625 in relation to inconvenience across 3 complaint response from September 2023 to September 2024. However, the resident has incurred further inconvenience before and after the complaint responses. She is still living with damp almost 2.5 years after the disrepair surveyor attended. The landlord’s compensation offer was therefore not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. A finding of maladministration is made and an order of an additional £500 compensation has been made to reflect the significant time and trouble, distress, inconvenience and delays incurred to date.

Complaint handling

Within the scope of this investigation, the landlord issued complaint responses under at least 3 separate references which all relate to the ongoing unresolved damp issue at the property. Our Complaint Handling Code sets out our expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.”
The landlord’s complaints policy says, “when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged at stage 1 within 5 days of receipt.” The responses for the resident’s complaint raised in April 2023 were not provided to us. However, an internal landlord email said it would log the complaint at stage 1 on 2 May 2023. This was a month after the resident raised the complaint, which was an unreasonable delay. And only appeared to be prompted by the resident chasing on 19 April 2023, which was unreasonable.

Complaint reference 16577274

The landlord did not provide a record of the complaint raised by the resident on 21 September 2023. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to say it would arrange for a surveyor to attend in its stage 1 response sent 10 October 2023. However, it is important a landlord maintains its commitments set out in its complaint responses. In this case, it failed to do so, as there was no evidence it arranged for a surveyor to attend. This led to the complaint escalation which was a failing.

Complaint reference ISL178379

The resident emailed the landlord on 11 February 2024 and said she was “disappointed, dismayed, in despair”. Despite the clear dissatisfaction, there was no evidence the landlord responded to the email, which was unreasonable. The complaint was eventually raised on 27 February 2024, over 2 weeks later.
The resident sent a lengthy email on 25 March 2024 continuing to express dissatisfaction following the stage 1 complaint response sent 13 March 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider escalating this complaint to stage 2 at this point as the resident’s issues remained unresolved. Failure to do so resulted in:
1. A third complaint being made 9 weeks later.
2. Delays:
  1. With the resident getting the damp addressed.
  2. In her being able to bring the complaint to us.

Complaint reference ISL705649

Minor mistakes within complaint responses can happen, and they would not normally be commented on. However, in this complaint, the stage 1 response sent 21 May 2024 said, “the total amount awarded is £, as detailed in the table below.” And the stage 2 response sent 3 September 2024 had 2 mathematical errors within the compensation. Firstly, the complaint handler said they would round up 1 month for £42 but then failed to do so. And secondly typed an incorrect total compensation figure in the table. The errors in both complaint responses suggest either a lack of care or rushed responses.
Overall, it was positive the landlord’s complaint responses were sent within a reasonable timeframe, offered compensation, and tried to address the resident’s complaint. But given the resident has had to raise at least 3 separate complaints in an effort to get the damp issues resolved, and there were issues with all 3 complaint references provided to us, a finding of maladministration is made. Considering our guidance on remedies, an order for £300 compensation has been made to acknowledge the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Agree an action plan with the resident regarding the next steps it intends to take to resolve the damp at the property. The action plan should outline timescales and be provided to us.
3. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £1,570.30 which made up of:
  1. £770.30 compensation previously offered across the 2 complaints (£283.30 on 13 March 2024 and £487 incorrect amount but we have taken this figure on 3 September 2024).
  2. £800 ordered as part of this complaint.

We are aware the resident has previously been paid a further £400 offered on 7 November 2023 taking the total compensation to £1970.30.

Recommendation

We note the resident has said that she is dealing with 1 surveyor now to address the damp and has found this positive. The landlord should consider whether it would be appropriate to assign 1 or 2 surveyors to a property when an issue is reported for continuity.