London Borough of Islington (202420249)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202420249 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Islington |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
23 March 2026 |
Background
1. The property is on the top floor of a block of flats. The resident told the landlord water had entered her property and had caused damp and mould. She moved her family out of the property as she believed it was uninhabitable for them.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water leaks and resulting damp and mould.
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Our decision (determination)
3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water leaks and resulting damp and mould.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
5. While the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of leaks, it did not identify the root cause of the water leaks or resolve the problem in a timely manner. Its communication with the resident was also poor at times. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
6. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and there was a delay in issuing its final complaint response.
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 |
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 27 April 2026 |
|
2 |
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £850 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
|
27 April 2026
|
|
3 |
The landlord is ordered to arrange for an independent specialist to inspect the building and the property to assess the potential presence and cause of water ingress and damp. The survey report must set out:
If works are required the landlord must set out its plans to address any identified concerns and provide the resident with a copy of its action plan, including timescales for completing any agreed actions. A copy of the action plan must be shared with the Service. |
27 April 2026
|
|
4
|
The landlord is ordered to complete a management review of this case to identify learning and use that to improve its working practices. This review must include:
|
11 May 2026
|
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
28 February 2024 |
The resident made a complaint and said:
|
|
14 March 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said:
|
|
14 March 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said the leak was not new and water continued to access her property through the same points. She noted the problem was getting worse and she wanted evidence the repairs had been completed. |
|
18 March 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request and said it would provide a response within 20 working days. |
|
29 April 2024 |
The landlord issued its final complaint response and said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident told the Service on 11 March 2026 that the damp and mould had returned and she was still unclear where the leak was coming from. She said the property was uninhabitable and her family could no longer live in the flat. She also said the landlord had failed to keep her updated and had not offered her any compensation, despite previously agreeing to do so. The resident wanted the landlord to fix the leak, offer compensation, and raise a further buildings insurance claim once it had completed the repairs. |
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 response to the resident’s reports of water leaks and resulting damp and mould. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
7. The resident’s reports of damp and mould referred to a possible impact upon her family’s health. While these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused for a court or insurer to consider. They are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we did investigate
8. It is not disputed the resident told the landlord on 3 August 2023 that water had entered her property, although the landlord did not share a copy of the report with the Service. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities in the resident’s lease agreement. This confirms it is responsible for the structure of the building including the roof. The resident is responsible for the interior of the property.
9. The landlord raised a job on 7 August 2023 to inspect and repair the gutter, with a target completion date of 11 August 2023. This was appropriate. When an external leak affects a resident’s property, landlords are expected to identify the source of the leak, find out whether it falls under their responsibilities, and, where appropriate, prevent the leak from continuing.
10. The landlord also arranged to carry out a damp inspection. This was appropriate. Following reports of damp and mould, landlords should undertake appropriate investigations to find out the cause of the damp and mould. If it is found the damp is caused by problems with the fabric of the property, they should take steps to resolve the issues in line with the recommendations in the Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
11. The landlord attended on 11 August 2023 and confirmed the gutter was clear and there was no evidence of any cracks. It was noted the surveyor was visiting the property on 21 August 2023 and the roofer should return on this date. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The landlord carried out an inspection on 21 August 2023. It was noted that there were cracks in the brickwork and the sealant around the bedroom window was degrading. It was also noted there was mould and signs of efflorescence on some of the internal walls. The landlord concluded that water was entering the property through the cracks in the brickwork. It was recommended the cracks were filled, the window was resealed, and a dye test was carried out on the gutters. The landlord confirmed the resident was responsible for any internal work. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
13. The landlord raised jobs on the same day to repoint the brickwork, reseal the bedroom window, and carry out a dye test. This was appropriate given it was responsible for the structure of the building.
14. The landlord carried out a dye test on 13 September 2023. No leaks were identified in the gutter during the test. It was recommended the front parapet wall and the area around the tank room were sealed and repointed. While a follow-up job was raised, it is unclear whether the resident was provided with an update. This was a failure. Landlords should ensure they keep residents informed regarding the progress of repairs as this helps build trust and manage their expectations.
15. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 27 September 2023 to reseal the bedroom window but was unable to gain access. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay in carrying out the work at this point. A further appointment was arranged for 1 November 2023. The work to seal and repoint the parapet wall and the area around the tank room was completed on 6 October 2023. The window was also resealed on this date.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 October 2023 and asked for a copy of the damp inspection report. She said she needed the information for her insurance provider. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the request. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord and was not consistent with the Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould. This says landlords should share the outcomes of surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps.
17. The resident reported a further leak on 22 January 2024. She said rainwater was coming through the bathroom ceiling. While the landlord raised a repair on the same day to inspect and repair the leak, there is no evidence it established whether the leak was ongoing or causing damage to the resident’s property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this, as this would have confirmed whether it needed to prioritise the work.
18. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 13 February 2024 and noted the roof was flat and needed to be recoated and sealed around the outlet. It said the work would need to be done on a day when there was no rain.
19. There is no evidence the landlord did an assessment to determine if temporary repairs could be done to ensure the roof was watertight. This meant it did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s lease agreement. There is also no evidence it provided the resident with an update. The landlord’s failure to do this was likely to have caused her inconvenience and distress. It was clear she was concerned about the damage that had and continued to be caused to the property.
20. The resident noted on 18 February 2024 that water continued to ‘‘pour into the property’’ through the bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, and hallway walls. She said the landlord needed to check the property given the repairs that had been completed had not resolved the matter. She also said her insurance provider had started the internal works but there was no point in continuing while the leaks continued. She also noted she was not provided with an update following the visit on 13 February 2024.
21. The landlord responded on 19 February 2024 and said an appointment had been arranged for 29 February 2024 to check the roof but would need to be rearranged if it was raining on the appointment day. The landlord’s response lacked empathy and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the resident’s circumstances.
22. The resident told the landlord on 24 February 2024 that the situation was getting worse and it needed to carry out an inspection as soon as possible. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This led to her making a complaint on 28 February 2024. She said she told the landlord in August 2023 that there was a leak and this caused damp and mould in her property. She also noted there was a further leak in exactly the same place in January 2024 and questioned whether any repairs had been completed. She asked the landlord to confirm what repairs had been completed and to repair the leak.
23. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2024.When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the failure and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
24. In this case, the landlord said it responded to the resident’s reports of leaks in a timely manner. It provided a breakdown of the work that had been carried out. This provided clarity. The landlord also noted the resident should make a claim on her contents insurance for any damage that had been caused to her possessions. This was consistent with the information in its repairs guide. It said she could make a claim on its buildings insurance and provided her with details on how to do this. This was appropriate. The landlord said it would pay the excess on the policy. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
25. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day and noted the landlord had not addressed her concerns. She said the leak was not new and water continued to access her property through the same points. She said the problem was getting worse and she wanted evidence the work had been completed.
26. The housing records confirm the landlord resealed the walls and the flash band joints on the coping stones on 15 March 2024. It spoke to the tenant who lived in the property on 23 April 2024, who confirmed there had been no further leaks. Based on this information, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the work that was carried out was successful.
27. The landlord agreed to carry out a further damp inspection on 10 June 2024. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in its damp and mould procedure. This says it will carry out inspections within 20 working days. This demonstrated it did not adopt a proactive approach in seeking to resolve the issue for the resident.
28. The landlord noted on 29 April 2024 in its final complaint response that the resident’s tenant had confirmed there had been no leaks following the work that was completed on 15 March 2024. This provided clarity. It also said an appointment had been arranged for 10 June 2024 to carry out a damp survey. The landlord apologised for the delay in arranging the appointment. This was appropriate.
29. The landlord confirmed the resident would need to wait for the outcome of the damp survey before arranging for the work to be completed on her property. While it said it would consider her request for compensation following receipt of the damp survey, there is no evidence it did this. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the resident continued to experience problems with damp and mould.
30. The landlord noted on 3 May 2024, during the damp survey appointment that was brought forward from 10 June 2024, that there was damp in the bedroom and bathroom. It said the damp was due to a roof leak and further investigations were required.
31. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 27 June 2024, during which it was noted that the plaster in the bedroom was not dry. It said the damp could be due to moisture penetration through cracks in the asphalt around the rainwater outlet and the skirting on the walkway. The bathroom, kitchen, and roof were not inspected during the visit. It was recommended that a balloon and dye test were carried out to the rainwater outlets and the rainwater collar outlet was renewed. It was also recommended the asphalt around the rainwater outlets, vent stacks, and skirting were repaired and resealed.
32. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 2 July 2024. This included noting the roof had been repaired. The landlord was entitled to rely on a suitably qualified member of staff to determine the repairs had been successful. It also provided the resident with a copy of the inspection report. This was appropriate.
33. The resident questioned the landlord’s conclusion about the roof on the same day. She said the landlord had not checked the roof or all of the rooms in the property. She also said the insurance provider’s contractor needed access to the roof to carry out a dye test. Further requests for access to the roof were made by the resident during the same month. The landlord’s failure to respond caused delays.
34. The housing records confirm the work to repair the asphalt was completed on 29 July 2024. The landlord inspected the roof on 23 August 2024 and noted the surface needed to be coated and the brickwork sealed. The works were carried out on 29 August 2024 and 30 August 2024.
35. The resident told the landlord on 25 September 2024 that the walls were still wet and this meant there was an ongoing leak. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or the subsequent emails that she sent. It told her on 31 October 2024 that no defects were found on the roof during a recent inspection and it needed to inspect her property.
36. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 13 November 2024. Mould was found in the bathroom and kitchen. A damp patch was also identified in the bedroom and the plaster in the hallway was wet near the floor. Poor ventilation was considered a contributing factor in the bedroom and bathroom given the brick wall vents in the boiler cupboard were covered and preventing air from entering the property.
37. It was recommended the wet plaster in the bedroom was removed, the mould was treated and the external wall repointed. It was also recommended the roof was checked to ensure all of the work had been completed. It said the resident should uncover the brick wall vents and check the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord told the resident on 10 December 2024 that it had inspected the roof and arranged for its contractor to carry out pointing work.
38. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of maladministration has been made alongside orders to investigate and remedy the cause of any identified water leaks and damp, and to identify learning to improve the landlord’s working practices. This is because, overall, the landlord failed to identify and remedy the cause of the leaks promptly or effectively, and it sometimes communicated with the resident about this poorly. An apology and an award of £800 compensation have also been ordered to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures have a significant impact on the resident.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
39. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 February 2024. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. This was not consistent with its complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This meant the resident was not clear about when she would receive a response.
40. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2024. This was nearly consistent with the 10-working-day target timescale in its complaints policy, being just one working day late, which was unlikely to have affected the resident.
41. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 March 2024. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on 18 March 2024, in line with the 5-working-day timescale in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
42. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response by the deadline date or tell the resident there would be a delay in responding. This was a failure.
43. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 29 April 2024, which was 29 working days after its acknowledgement. This was not consistent with the timescale in its acknowledgement and complaints policy. The landlord did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay in responding. This was not consistent with its compensation policy and demonstrated the landlord did not take learning from the complaint.
44. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of service failure has been made. An apology and an award of £50 compensation have also been ordered to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures cause minor delays in getting matters resolved.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
45. We did not identify on any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.
Communication
46. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to many of her requests for updates.