London Borough of Barnet (202429400)

Decision
Case ID	202429400
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barnet
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in the property. She also said squirrels had accessed the loft and damaged the insulation. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and actions to resolve these problems.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s responses to reports of damp and mould, squirrels in the loft, and the associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to reports of damp and mould, squirrels in the loft, and the associated repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord delayed completing repairs in a reasonable timeframe and did not communicate effectively with the resident. These themes continued after its complaint response, showing a lack of learning from earlier failings. Its responses did not go far enough to put things right and it missed opportunities to put things right sooner.
7. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint or escalation request as set out in the Complaint Handling Code (Code). There is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident at that stage. However, the resident said she did not receive its stage 2 response, and despite her chasing, the landlord took almost 2 months to re-send it.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in person and writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior member of staff the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 23 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £475 made up as follows: £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and repair delays £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication in relation to the stage 2 complaint response This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026
3	Inspection order The resident has reported damp and mould around the property. She also said the loft insulation is repeatedly damaged by squirrels, which causes cold spaces in the loft and leads to mould on the ceilings. The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the damp and mould in the property. It must also inspect the loft for damp, mould, and squirrels. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with the expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the condition of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the damp and mould and damaged loft insulation whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the damp and mould in the property, damaged loft insulation, and squirrels the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works When the inspection is completed, the landlord must: agree a communication plan with the resident to ensure it provides updates on any changes in timeframes and details of any further necessary works if required provide a named point of contact for the resident for these repairs write to the resident to confirm the communication plan, point of contact, and a timeframe for when work will likely begin and finish The landlord must complete all these actions no later than the due date. The landlord must provide us with a copy of the survey and letter no later than the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord could consider reviewing its policies around communications to ensure residents affected by complex or prolonged repairs receive timely updates and to ensure adequate oversight of the repairs service provided.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 11 June and 19 June 2024	The resident raised a complaint. In summary, she said: she had been reporting damp and mould problems since 2018 the landlord cleared the gutters in July 2023 as part of a previous complaint, but the damp and mould problem returned in August 2023 and had not been resolved in November 2023 two tradespeople attended but refused to inspect the loft due to squirrels and the insulation condition in January 2024 the insulation was repaired but no loft inspection or pest control had been arranged in May 2024 a surveyor said the balcony doors needed repairing and it would look into the pest proofing works on 19 June 2024 a contractor attended and did not complete pest proofing works She asked the landlord to set out how it would address her concerns.
5 July 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response. In summary, it said: it apologised for the delays and its poor communication it had arranged plastering repairs for 3 September 2024 it would contact her to arrange appointments to complete the other repairs identified in the May 2024 survey it was making changes within its Repairs Planning Team to improve its repairs oversight The landlord also gave the resident a named point of contact for any further issues.
3 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the damp and mould had not been resolved despite the Surveyor’s visit 3 months earlier. She said an appointment had been booked for 3 September 2024 to complete pest‑proofing in the loft. However, the contractor told her it had not been sent to carry out that work. She also said the balcony repairs were outstanding. She was unhappy with the delays and asked the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs.
11 October 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It apologised that repairs were not carried out on 3 September 2024. It said the contractor could not find the squirrels’ entry point, but recommending installing wire mesh in the roof to prevent them entering. The landlord said it would arrange another inspection to decide the next steps. It confirmed the balcony was repaired on 16 September 2024 and apologised for the delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the damp and mould issues were ongoing and she was unhappy with the delays to resolve it. She also told us the landlord had not installed the mesh to prevent squirrels damaging the insulation. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: install the roof mesh resolve the ongoing damp and mould

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s responses to reports of damp, mould, squirrels in the loft, and the associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

8. We understand the resident has a long history of reporting damp and mould. However, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s response from August 2023, as it had already investigated an earlier complaint and completed repairs. When the issues later returned, the resident raised a new complaint. We have also considered events after the landlord issued its final response because they relate to the same unresolved issues. For these reasons, our investigation covers the landlord’s actions between August 2023 and August 2025.
9. On 3 August 2023 the resident reported damp patches on the ceilings in the property. She said the landlord had previously told her that squirrels had damaged the insulation, which led to condensation on the ceiling. On 25 September 2023 the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould. The survey said the resident had cleaned the mould before their visit and that she was having issues with squirrels in the loft. The report recommended ‘sealing the roof space’ to prevent squirrels and then ‘reinstating the loft insulation’.
10. The landlord’s Damp, Mould, and Condensation Policy is silent in relation to timescales. However, it says it will inspect a property when it receives reports of damp and mould. Its Responsive Repairs Policy says it will attend routine repairs within 15 working days. The landlord took 38 working days to complete the inspection. The delay likely made the resident feel her concerns were not being taken seriously.
11. On 23 October 2023 the resident reported the ceiling mould had worsened and there was black mould on her walls. She also told the landlord that the Surveyor had told her follow on works were needed.
12. The landlord did not raise a repair until 5 November 2023. This added a further 14-day delay. The repair order was to inspect the loft and roof and provide a cost to fill any holes and install new insulation. It was fair for the landlord to ask for a quote to ensure it was getting value for money as set out in its Repairs Policy. However, the time taken to raise the follow-on repairs from the September 2023 survey was unreasonable and prolonged the resident’s distress.
13. Between 13 and 21 November 2023, the resident had at least 2 visits. The contractor noted excessive insulation, recommended ventilation, and said pest control needed to attend before further work could be completed. However, the landlord later said the insulation needed adjusting but did not confirm whether pest control should attend first. This inconsistency likely added to the resident’s confusion and contributed to the delays.
14. On 12 December 2023 the landlord recorded that its contractor had completed the loft insulation work. However, on 18 January 2024, it raised a new repair order to carry out the insulation work, pest proofing and a mould treatment. These inconsistencies would have made it hard for the landlord to have a clear understanding of what had been completed and what remained outstanding.
15. The landlord recorded the repairs were completed on 5 February 2024, 13 working days after it raised the order. This met its Repairs Policy timeframes. However, no pest proofing had been completed. The contracted noted it would speak to the landlord about the pest proofing.
16. Between 5 March and 17 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord at least 3 times for an update about pest proofing and damp problems. The landlord responded in May 2024 and said it would arrange the pest-proofing work.
17. The landlord has a duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the property is free from hazards. Mould is a recognised hazard under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord missed opportunities to take steps sooner to reduce the mould and address the squirrel activity in the loft. Earlier action, including diagnosis of the damp and preventative pest‑proofing, would likely have reduced the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
18. On 28 May 2024 the landlord inspected the property again. It identified that it needed to complete repairs around the porch and balcony as this was causing the damp and mould. However, it did not raise follow-on repairs until the resident contacted it to make a complaint. The repairs process should not depend on residents chasing it for updates. This was not consistent with its Damp and Mould Policy, which says it will regularly update residents about any actions it will take to resolve damp and mould reports.
19. Between 11 June and 19 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord twice to make a complaint. She was unhappy with the time it had taken to address the damp, mould, and squirrels. During this time, the landlord raised repair orders for the follow-on works it had previously identified. It also raised an order for pest control to attend.
20. The landlord communicated these actions to the resident. While this was reasonable, it should not have taken for the resident to contact the landlord for it to raise the repairs. This showed the landlord’s repairs procedures were not effective or allowed it to have reasonable oversight of its repairs.
21. On 5 July 2024 the landlord issued its complaint response. It apologised for the delays and its poor communication. It acknowledged that earlier damp and mould repairs were unsuccessful. The landlord gave a date of 3 September 2024 for plastering repairs and said other appointments would follow. It told the resident it was improving the oversight of its Repairs Planning Team and gave her a named point of contact.
22. These steps were reasonable and may have helped rebuild the resident’s trust and provide consistency. However, the landlord did not say which repairs would be completed in September 2023 and what remained outstanding. This lack of clarity likely caused the resident confusion and uncertainty as to what repairs would be completed.
23. The response also did not address the length of delays, which dated back to August 2023. By July 2024, she had been living with damp and mould for 11 months, yet the landlord had not resolved the issues. The landlord did not consider the impact of the prolonged delays, poor communication, and repeated visits. Its Compensation Policy allows payments between £50 to £100 where issues have continued for long periods and impacted the resident. Considering these failings and the distress and inconvenience it caused, it would have been fair for the landlord to have offered compensation.
24. On 2 September 2024 the resident asked the landlord to confirm the visit on 3 September 2024. It said the appointment was for ‘loft repairs’ and the contractor would contact her about the balcony and porch repairs. Clearer communication from the landlord would have meant the resident understood which works would take place. This caused her avoidable inconvenience.
25. On 3 September 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She reported that the wrong contractor attended that day and did no work in the loft. Despite several inspections in the loft, no lasting repairs had been completed to resolve the damp and mould. She also said that she had also been waiting for the balcony to be repaired. She repeated that these issues had been ongoing for more than 3 years.
26. Between 13 and 16 September 2024 the contractor attended to repair the balcony, inspect the roof, and clear the gutters. It took the landlord 80 working days to complete the balcony repairs after they were identified as contributing towards the damp and mould problem. This exceeded the timeframes set out in its Repairs Policy and prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
27. On 11 October 2024 the landlord issued its final response. It accepted that it had sent the wrong contractor in September 2023, which was reasonable. However, it said another loft inspection was needed before installing the mesh that the contractor had recommended. The landlord said there was not enough evidence to decide the best course of action.
28. While it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself about what repairs are needed, it had multiple opportunities to do so. This suggests that the landlord’s records did not support its decision-making in relation to the pest-proofing work. This also showed the landlord’s oversight of its repairs was weak, which contributed towards the overall delays the resident experienced. It missed the chance to improve its communication and provide the resident with a timeframe for when works would be completed by.
29. The landlord’s response also acknowledged it took 4 months to repair the balcony. It said the resident’s complaint highlighted the importance of raising follow on repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
30. While the landlord recognised the importance of raising and completing repairs in a reasonable timeframe, it did not show it had taken learning from the stage 1 complaint. It had previously acknowledged its poor communication and delays but there had been little improvement. The landlord also missed another opportunity to compensate the resident in line with its policy for the distress it had caused.
31. On 11 October 2024 the resident asked the landlord for an update. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It then raised a repair on 7 November 2024 to complete repairs on the porch.
32. It is unclear why the landlord did not raise this repair earlier if the porch repairs remained outstanding from the repairs visit on 3 and 16 September 2024. The landlord had not shown learning from its earlier failing where it did not raise repairs until after the resident’s contact.
33. Between 26 November and 24 December 2024 a contractor inspected the porch and recommended a damp survey. The landlord recorded that the inspection was completed on 24 December 2024. However, the dates in its records did not match the resident’s account. This inconsistency showed weak record keeping. During this time, the landlord also raised a repair order to install mesh in the loft space to protect it from squirrels. It is unclear what the findings were from the damp survey.
34. On 8 April 2025, almost 4 months after the landlord raised a repair to fit mesh in the loft, the contractor attended. It reported that it had checked all of the roof tiles and could not find the squirrels’ entry point. It also recorded that the resident said the squirrels were entering through the property next door, which was privately owned. She repeated that she was told the squirrels kept damaging the loft insulation, which then created cold spaces in the loft. This led to damp and mould. The contractor reported that the neighbours would need to block the holes in their own property to prevent squirrels entering.
35. The landlord was responsible for repairs and pest control within the loft. While it was not responsible for works to the neighbouring roof, it could have taken steps to prevent re‑entry into its own property, such as installing the mesh earlier. Although the landlord raised a repair order to fit the mesh, it did not follow through on it.
36. On 21 August 2025 the landlord contacted the resident to arrange another damp and mould survey. She told it the damp had not changed since the survey in May 2024 and repeated that pest proofing had not been completed. It is unclear why it took 4 months after the April 2025 visit to act. This delay was unreasonable and further damaged the resident’s confidence in the landlord to resolve the issues.
37. Since referring her complaint to us, the resident has reported damp and mould in the dining room and bedroom ceilings. She also said that her dining room’s walls drip with water, the ceiling mould is present. The landlord said it would inspect the loft on 28 January 2026 and she is waiting for further information about the damp and mould.
38. Overall, the landlord’s responses and actions did not go far enough to put things right. It acknowledged the delays and its poor communication, but this continued after it issued its final response. The landlord did not manage the repairs effectively. It delayed inspections, raised repairs late, and failed to update the resident in a reasonable time. It also did not take preventative action to stop repeated squirrel entry, which allowed continued insulation damage and contributed to cold spots and condensation.
39. These failures caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and a loss of trust in the landlord’s ability to resolve her concerns. The landlord did not offer compensation at the time of its responses, despite long delays and a significant impact. We have made an order of £400 compensation in line with both the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The response to the complaint
Finding	Service failure

40. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
41. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
42. On 11 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord as she was unhappy that the damp and mould issues remained unresolved. She also said, ‘this was not the first time she had needed to complain’. The landlord responded on 13 June 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience.
43. Under the Code, residents do not need to use the word “complaint” for the landlord to treat it as one. The landlord missed the opportunity to log a complaint and investigate her concerns sooner. However, there is no evidence this caused significant disadvantage until she contacted it again on 19 June 2024.
44. On 21 June 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This met the 5 working day timeframe set out in its policy and the Code. It gave its response on 5 July 2024, 10 working days later. This met the 10-working day response timeframe set out in its policy and the Code.
45. On 3 September 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged this on 13 September 2024, 9 working days later. This fell slightly outside of its 5 working day timeframe but there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident.
46. On 11 October 2024 the landlord gave its stage 2 response. This met the 20-working day timeframe set out in its policy and the Code. That day, the resident told the landlord she had not received its stage 2 response as she expected. She received an automated email that said the landlord was short staffed.
47. The resident contacted us on 18 October 2024 and again on 30 December 2024 to report that she still had not received the response. She also contacted her landlord. These repeated contacts show the resident remained unsure whether the landlord had dealt with her complaint.
48. On 1 January 2025 the resident told us the landlord had provided her with a copy of the response. We cannot reasonably conclude whether the landlord emailed its final response on 11 October 2024. We also do not dismiss the resident’s concern that she did not receive it.
49. However, when the resident told the landlord she had not received its response, the landlord missed opportunities to resend it in a timely manner. Failing to do so prolonged the resident’s uncertainty and caused her avoidable inconvenience.
50. The landlord’s Compensation Policy and our remedies guidance both suggest compensation awards between £50 to £100 for service failure. We have made an order of £75 compensation in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

51. The landlord’s decision making and oversight of the repairs was poor. Delays occurred because it did not create a clear action plan or coordinate work across teams. Although it has a Healthy Homes Team, this team needs a joined‑up approach with other departments and contractors. This is so information is shared quickly and repairs progress in a reasonable time. Better coordination and clearer responsibility would help the landlord diagnose issues sooner, prevent delays, and improve outcomes for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. The landlord’s record keeping contributed to the delays in this case. Several entries were unclear or inconsistent. This made it difficult to see what work had been completed and what remained outstanding. Poor records weaken a landlord’s oversight of repairs. They make decision‑making harder and increase the risk of duplicated visits, missed actions, and prolonged delays. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

53. When residents repeatedly report the same issues, it can undermine their confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve them. The landlord’s communication could be better. The landlord could consider improving how it records and tracks reports to ensure issues are not overlooked. This approach would help prevent residents from spending time and effort making multiple reports.