London Borough of Newham (202426820)

Background

1. The resident lived in a ground-floor property. She reported a leak to the landlord in October 2023. She continued to report damp and mould after this until her complaint in July 2024. She had several health conditions, which the landlord was aware of. The resident passed away in March 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould

4. There were multiple leaks and similar issues causing damp and mould in the resident’s home. The landlord resolved some of these within its repairs policy timescales but there were delays in it completing other repairs. Overall, its offers of redress were in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance and dispute resolution principles.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. There were delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process. However, it acknowledged and apologised for the delays. It offered compensation in line with its policy and showed learning from its failures.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said the situation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s damp and mould strategy sets out its approach to responding to damp and mould reports. It says it will ensure it undertakes a thorough assessment as soon as possible to find the cause. It will then ensure it provides an effective response. In cases where leaks or disrepair are a factor, it will act to resolve the cause of the damp and mould and may also need to complete additional repairs.
8. In the landlord’s repairs policy, it categorises repairs by urgency. It will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. It will attend urgent repairs within 3 or 7 calendar days depending on the work needed. It will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
9. Also in its repairs policy, the landlord says it may need to inspect a problem to find the nature of the required works. It will usually complete the inspection within 7 days. It will acknowledge damp and mould service requests within 48 hours of receipt. It will schedule an inspection within 2 weeks of the first contact. The timing of any required works will depend on their complexity and scale.
10. The resident reported finding a soaking wet wall with brown marking on 2 October 2023. She told the landlord she tried to report it as an emergency, but its staff told her it was not one. She reported her immediate neighbour having the same issue and said she suspected a burst pipe. She told it about her asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It shared her report with its damp and mould team for an inspection.
11. The landlord inspected the property within 7 days, in line with its repairs policy. It found a collapsed drain to the front of the resident’s property. It asked the water company to investigate. It found high levels of penetrating damp throughout the property and installed a dehumidifier. This was positive. However, it did not raise works to resolve this until the resident chased it for an update on 16 October 2023. This caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident.
12. The landlord completed works to the drains on 27 October 2023. It revisited on 3 and 7 November 2023 and found a leak from the flat above into the resident’s property. It fixed this and updated the resident. While its communication was initially flawed, the landlord completed works within its policy timescales.
13. In December 2023, the water company visited to inspect for burst water mains at the landlord’s request. The landlord found 2 other major issues within a mile of the resident’s home and wanted to ensure the same issue was not affecting her. The water company attended ahead of the scheduled appointment and did not inspect the resident’s home. While frustrating for the resident, it is clear this also frustrated the landlord. However, its request for this inspection showed a thorough approach to the ongoing issue.
14. The landlord completed further works in December 2023. It fixed a leak in a mains pipe behind the resident’s toilet and cleared a drain blockage. It also cleared the guttering and fitted a new drain. In January 2024, it surveyed the property and gave the resident dehumidifiers to help dry out the property.
15. The resident continued to report problems with damp. The landlord visited again on 28 February 2024 and removed the dehumidifiers. She asked it to lift her bathroom floor to look for the problem causing water to soak through. She said the walls were still wet to touch and reported the surveyor saying the landlord could condemn the property. We have not seen notes from this visit nor any evidence it inspected under the floor.
16. In April 2024, the landlord arranged for its roofing team to check the roof of the property for leaks. They attended but could not access the roof without scaffold and said they would report back to the landlord. However, they cleared leaves from the guttering. The resident emailed the landlord and said she thought the problem in her property might be related to a tree which had grown over the roof.
17. The resident chased the landlord for an update in late May 2024 after it attended to clear her guttering. It had some concern about a potential blockage in her neighbour’s drains or pipes. She reported ongoing damp and said her life and wellbeing were deteriorating.
18. In July 2024, the resident chased the landlord again for updates and complained about the time taken to resolve the problem. She said her kitchen floor lino was bubbling and her walls were still wet. The landlord’s surveyor acknowledged the situation had been ongoing for too long and would focus on finding a resolution.
19. In late July 2024, the landlord and its drainage contractor attended the property. They found issues with pipework which required repair. It applied for a temporary move for the resident so it could complete major works. It completed a health and special needs application for her so it could find a suitable property for her needs. In early August 2024, it explained to her it can take some time to find a suitable property. It fairly managed her expectations by doing so.
20. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of August 2024, it apologised for the time taken to arrange repair works found in July 2024, and the associated distress and inconvenience. Its £300 compensation offer was in line with its policy for moderate to high distress and delay. Its offer to consider reimbursement for use of dehumidifiers upon receipt of the resident’s electricity bill was fair and in line with its compensation policy for incurred costs.
21. After the resident escalated her complaint in late August 2024, there are no records of communication until October 2024 when the landlord began chasing an internal update on her move to temporary accommodation. She accepted a property after viewing on 9 October 2024 but requested some adaptations ahead of moving in, which the landlord agreed to complete. This delayed the move slightly, but it was good practice for it to complete her needs-based requests ahead of the move.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided a full history of the repairs. It gave information on her move to temporary accommodation and said it would consider her need for added time to pack and move. It apologised for the time taken to find a temporary property. Its £1,200 compensation offer for repairs was fair and in line with its policy. The offer was also in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings by a landlord which have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident.
23. The resident moved to the temporary property on 22 November 2024. The landlord completed works in March 2025. It tried to contact the resident to arrange her move home, but she was in hospital at the time. She later passed away.
24. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles. The principles are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
25. The landlord’s apologies and compensation offer were fair and in line with our remedies guidance and its own compensation policy. It has provided us with the lessons it has learnt from this case. This includes monitoring of repairs, record keeping, communication, management of moves to temporary accommodation and resident support. It has outlined improvements made in all aspects which include, but are not limited to, staff training, policy updates, newly established communication protocols and standardised repairs templates.
26. Overall, it can be difficult for landlords to find the source of leaks, damp, and mould. In this case, there were several problems and it took the landlord over a year to fully resolve the issues. It completed some repairs within policy timescales while there were delays in completing others. Its offers of redress were fair and proportionate efforts to put things right and it has shown thorough learning from this case. As such, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in its handling of leaks, damp, and mould.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It can extend its response time by 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Its policy is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
28. The landlord took 29 working days to send its stage 1 response to the resident. It did not acknowledge the delay or offer remedy for this. This was not in line with its complaints policy, nor its compensation policy. Its compensation policy allows for payments starting at £50 for delays and it should have considered this in its response.
29. The landlord took 33 working days to send its stage 2 response. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation. This was £50 for its delayed stage 1 response and £50 for its delayed stage 2 response. This was proportionate and in line with its compensation policy.
30. Following the resident’s referral to us, the landlord said it has provided updated communication and coordination training to its complaint handling staff. It implemented new systems to monitor ongoing complaints. It also implemented weekly team meetings to confirm staff responsibilities and assign a single point of contact for residents.
31. Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, it has acknowledged this. It apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy. It also showed learning from the failures and implemented new systems to avoid future problems. As such, we find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

32. The landlord has completed a thorough review of the case and found key learning to improve its service provision.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. We found no concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

34. The resident had to chase the landlord several times for updates about repairs and her move to temporary accommodation. However, it has since provided training to staff about effective communication and has implemented shared access systems to improve internal information sharing.