London Borough of Islington (202423945)

Decision
Case ID	202423954
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure tenancy
Date	24 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat with her partner, and children (both adults). 1 of the children live with asthma. 1 of her children who is an adult also has acted as her representative. The resident raised concerns about a leak in her property historically, and the landlord attended to try to resolve the issue. It acknowledged the property was in bad condition and completed damp and mould surveys which identified concerns with gutters and downpipes led to water ingress. It completed works to resolve the issue and the poor condition of windows, but the damp issue remained outstanding even after the resident’s complaint to the landlord and it resolved them sometime between July and August 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp, mould, and repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and repairs.
4. There was reasonable redressed offered by the landlord in its response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp, mould, and repairs

5. While the landlord acknowledged there were delays in its handling of the resident’s concerns, it did not identify all of its failings. There were also further delays following the landlord’s final response which led to the issue remaining ongoing for longer than necessary. It apologised at stage 2 for its communication, and uncoordinated repairs but this continued to be an issue which contributed to further delays. As such the landlord could not demonstrate any learning taken. Additionally, the level of compensation was not enough to put things right for the failures we have identified in this report.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed with its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, and provision of its response at stage 1. It had errors in its complaint response such as incorrect dates and compensation amounts. It acknowledged some of the failures. The compensation and apology offered during its process were however sufficient to put things right for the failures we have identified.

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	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,092 for the inconvenience caused by its repairs failures. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £642 for repair handling failures. It should subtract any sums already paid to the resident from the total. The additional £450 is awarded for the distress, inconvenience, further delays, communication failings, and failure to show it appropriately considered the vulnerabilities within the household.   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 22 December 2025
2	Inspection Order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a qualified Surveyor. 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 entire property for any concerns with the walls, flooring, damp, mould, necessary repairs, and produce a written report with photographs. The survey must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any damp and mould or leaks. 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 and resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible.) 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.	No later than 22 December 2025
3	Learning order   The landlord should review this case and identify how it can better its communication, repairs coordination, its record keeping, and effectively deal with delays to ensue prompt resolution of issues. This review must be completed by a manager independent of the service areas involved in this matter. It should produce a report of its findings.	No later than 22 December 2025

 

Recommendation

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

Our recommendation
If it remains outstanding, pay the resident the £50 it offered during its complaints process.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 July 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about long standing issues with damp and mould caused by an external pipe leak, which persisted from around October/November 2023 and negatively impacted her health. She expressed frustration with poor customer service, including repeated incorrect information and failure to follow through on repair commitments. The resident provided images of the affected room and a video showing an ant “infestation” in another bedroom due to a decaying window ledge. She noted that cracks in the rotting wood allowed insects, including wood lice, to enter the property.
3 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident and apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It provided a history of the complaint and the actions it had taken around her concerns between 8 November 2023 and 1 October 2024. I It said an operative attended on 3 August 2024 and she did not wish for the works to proceed as she was rearranging replacing the windows herself. It told her any further repairs to the windows she was fitting were her responsibility. It acknowledged delays in responding and scheduling appointments as these fell outside of the timeframes within its repairs policy. It offered the resident compensation of £466.62 which it broke down as: £50 for its failure to schedule an appointment within the 20 day routine repair policy timeframes on 2 of its work orders. £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint (this was less than what it stated as the start of the response where it committed to offer £50 for this delay). £291.92 for the length of time taken to complete repairs since November 2023 and May 2024 (calculated at £41.66 x 7 months). £100 for the inconvenience caused.
9 October 2024	The resident requested escalation, stating that several concerns remained unresolved such as inadequate communication, misunderstanding of job scheduling, uncoordinated repairs, ongoing leak issue, lack of follow up, unfinished work, ongoing damage, and her compensation concerns. She said that the situation caused significant distress and inconvenience in her daily life.
6 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response and said the resident initially complained on 9 August 2024 about ongoing damp and mould caused by an external pipe leak and difficulties with repairs. The landlord stated the stage 1 response had led to a work order for stain blocking and painting plastered walls, scheduled for 1 October 2024. It apologised for its poor communication, uncoordinated repairs, and lack of follow-up. It confirmed work orders matched its repair system records. It admitted there was misinformation in its stage 1 response around its attendance to window repairs on 3 August 2024. It confirmed it installed new windows on 19 September 2024 and was due to attend on 8 November 2024 for minor snagging works. It said it had raised a work order for the leak reported on 23 September 2024 and a diagnostic survey on 25 September 2024 which had found a loose joint in a downpipe. It resolved the leak on 30 October 2024. It apologised for the recurrence after initially fixing the issue in May 2024 and explained the complexity with external leaks. It explained it had delayed damp, and mould works to her property due to the leak. It agreed to book an appointment for plastering works on 14 November 2024, and it would paint after completing the plastering. It acknowledged the delays, inconvenience, and poor communication since November 2023. It apologised for the prolonged hold times she experienced, inaccurate information provided, and service failures she endured. It committed to learning from the complaint and said it had shared feedback with the relevant teams. It offered her compensation of £691.62, replacing its stage 1 offer and broke this down as: £50 for the delay in its stage 1 response. £50 for its failure to schedule 2 appointments within the 20 day timeframe in its repairs policy. £150 for the time and trouble of chasing updates on the leak, windows, damp, and mould. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the recurrence of the leak delaying remedial work. £291.62 for the delay in resolving the leak, damp, and mould (7 months at £41.66 per month).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us on 31 January 2025 that she wanted us to investigate. She told us the landlord had not listened, it had been aware that the root cause had been an external leak, but it kept sending surveyors. She confirmed it had replaced all the windows in the property, and she had accepted its compensation offer. She however did not feel the compensation was adequate.

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	Damp, mould, and repairs
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can 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 lasted. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. We have seen evidence in the landlord’s repair records that there were delays with its handling of several repairs which fell outside of the 20 day timescales in its repairs and damp and mould policy for an initial inspection. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord also found service failures due to delays with the works on 2 occasions. There were appointments for a diagnostic survey scheduled for 31 November 2023 which it rescheduled with the resident and completed on 18 January 2024. The second occasion was around works raised for decorative maintenance and servicing of windows in the resident’s property. It raised the works on 10 July 2024, and the stage 1 response says it completed the works on 23 August 2024.
9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it also acknowledged there were further failings around delays citing concerns around recurrence of a leak causing delays to remedial works. We have also seen evidence that the landlord completed multiple window repairs and arranged multiple gutter clearings, which was positive in investigating the root cause of the concerns. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings, and looked to put things right, through our investigation, we found further failings around delays, that the landlord failed to account for.
10. For example, the landlord’s records show its survey of 18 January 2024 identified the windows of the bedroom were in poor condition. It had raised a job to make this safe on 1 March 2024 which it completed on the same day. It then raised a repair on 2 March 2024 around repairing window sashes and a dropped window, which its records say it completed on 10 April 2024, 19 days outside its repair policy timeframes. The landlord did not acknowledge this in any of its responses, showing poor investigation into the resident’s concerns. Its record show further delays with works raised on 16 April 2024, of 9 days, which it also did not address in its response.
11. The landlord’s records were also confusing around the works to the downpipe. It raised works to the downpipe and gutters on 21 June 2024, however, its survey identified these concerns on 24 June 2024, as such it is unclear how the landlord arrived at the decision to raise the works earlier than the survey. It then failed to consider the timeframes in its damp and mould policy around raising remedial works within 3 working days. Following its survey of 24 June 2024, it said it noted the resident had raised concerns with damp in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room. Its records show that it did not raise some of the necessary works until 10 July 2024, a delay of 9 working days and this was inappropriate. We would expect the landlord to communicate any reasons which led to delays in it completing any remedial works identified by its survey. We have seen no evidence of this and that was unreasonable.
12. We also note that the landlord’s survey suggested the use of dehumidifiers as early as the survey on 24 June 2024 to speed up the drying process. While we have listened to a telephone conversation in which the landlord told the resident it was providing her with dehumidifiers that week, this conversation was undated. The landlord’s records show that it commented that the walls were still wet in September 2024, and do not show that it provided the resident with any dehumidifiers until November 2024, a delay of around 5 months and this was inappropriate. This contributed to further unnecessary delays in resolving the issue. It is unclear whether the downpipe issues factored into the delays in providing the dehumidifiers to the resident.
13. The landlord’s records also conflict with its stage 1 response about the repair timescale of a repair. The stage 1 response said it had raised a job to erect scaffolding on 19 January 2024 and completed this on 6 February 2024. However, its repair records show that one of the jobs on 19 January 2024 was to erect scaffolding and fix the rear rainwater pipe. Its records say it completed this on 3 June 2024.
14. Both the repair records and complaint response then say that the landlord raised another job on 17 May 2024, attended on 28 May 2024, and completed the repair to the rainwater pipe on this day. Nevertheless, both records suggest a delay of more than 130 days which was unreasonable. Further, the records make it unclear when it actually completed the repair and the number of attendances this involved, raising concerns about the accuracy of its record keeping, and investigation into the resident’s concerns.
15. The landlord said at stage 2 that following the resident’s reports of another leak on 23 September 2024 and another survey 2 days later, which identified a leak from the downpipe from a loose joint, it had resolved the issue on 30 October 2024. It apologised the issue reoccurred after it resolved it in May 2024, 5 months prior. It also confirmed it assigned an operative to treat and plaster the damp wall in her bedroom on 14 November 2024. However, the evidence suggests the issue continued as the landlord completed another survey on 3 January 2025 which identified water ingress from the downpipe affecting the wall. This January survey identified the need for scaffolding.
16. We have looked further into the landlord’s handling of the issues after the end of the complaint process. Its records are unclear of whether it is the same issue with the downpipe. However, they suggest it is a continuation due to the same issues that previously contributed to the resident’s concerns, (the damp wall and the downpipe repair) were present. The landlord’s records show a further delay in raising the works to erecting the scaffolding of 33 days between 3 January 2025 and 24 February 2025. This was not within 3 working days requirements in its damp and mould policy. Its records then show that on 21 May 2025, it said it had placed this on hold for roofing works, but there is no evidence it explained this delay to the resident. Its records then say it erected the scaffolding on 20 June 2025, as such roofing works added a 1 month delay.
17. In total according to the landlord’s records, it took the landlord 5 months (minus the delay explained for the roofing works), to erect the scaffold and it has not shown that it explained or justified the delay to the resident. The resident explained to us that the landlord resolved the issues with the down pipe between July 2025 and August 2025. That means it took between 6 to 8 months from identifying the further concerns with the down pipe to resolve it. This was inappropriate and left the resident living longer in damp and mould conditions.
18. We also cannot see that the landlord raised any works to address the concerns about the pest infestation caused by the rotten wood reported by the resident raised at stage 1. We would expect the landlord to have addressed the issue and to have explained if it treated the issue as a service request, or part of the complaint. We have seen no evidence that the resident raised the concern prior to her complaint, nor have we seen any evidence that the landlord looked to address this later within its records. However, we have also not seen this escalated by the resident in her escalation request.
19. The landlord did not act in line with its duties under the Landlord and tenant Act 1985 under Sections 9a, 10 and 11. The landlord’s records show that the resident repeatedly raised concerns about damp and some concerns with mould. Under these sections, landlords must address such issues within a reasonable timeframe. We do not consider the length of time the issues remained outstanding reasonable.
20. The landlord’s survey of 24 June 2024 also identified concerns with vulnerability in the property by an occupant. It said a member of the household lived with asthma, however we cannot see that the landlord appropriately considered this in its decision making around how to handle the situation, and this was inappropriate.
21. In considering the level of compensation awarded by the landlord, its separate awards fall broadly in line with its compensation guidance for distress, inconvenience, and failure to respond within appropriate timeframes. However, we identified additional failings with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, further delays, and lack of consideration to a household vulnerability. As such we have found that its offer of £642 did not adequately address the impact on the resident. Due to its failure to properly adhere to the timescales within its policy, and some concerns with its record keeping, this saw the resident living in the property with the leak, damp, and mould concerns for longer than was necessary.
22. The resident explained to us that the landlord had to replaster the wall again prior to further remedial appointments on 17 and 18 November 2025. In total following the stage 2 response on 6 November 2024, it appears the matter remained outstanding until at least 17 November 2025, over 12 months and this is not in keeping with its damp and mould procedure, or repair timeframes. This demonstrated that the landlord did not apply any of the learning it said it had taken at stage 2 or improved its services. In addition to a further compensation, we have ordered the landlord to consider improving its services.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

23. The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages of its complaints process. The evidence provided shows it did not act in line with its process at stage 1 as it should have acknowledged the complaint by 6 August 2024. It failed to do so and acknowledged it 3 working days later than it should have which was inappropriate. It however acted appropriately at stage 2 and acknowledged the complaint the day after the resident escalated.
24. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond within 10 working days of acknowledgement of the complaint. The stage 1 response was due on 20 August 2024, but the landlord delayed by over 1 month in providing its response on 3 October 2025. We have seen no evidence that the landlord requested any extension or kept the resident updated of the delay as required by its policy. Its actions were inappropriate, and to put things right it offered the resident £50 compensation.
25. The complaints policy says the landlord will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement, and the landlord appropriately kept to the timescales within its policy. However, within its stage 2 response, it incorrectly said that the resident raised her initial complaint on 9 August 2024 when it was actually on 30 June 2024. This shows poor investigation into her complaint and raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping, as it should have accurate records of when the resident actually raised her complaint with it. There was also a further mistake in its stage 1 response as its compensation offer says it only offered £25, rather than the £50 it promised earlier in the response.
26. The landlord however resolved the compensation issue at stage 2 and offered the correct amount. The errors in its complaint responses, discrepancies in its records which affected the quality and accuracy of its investigation all also affected its complaint handling as shown with the incorrect information it provided at stage 1 around the windows. The landlord should be mindful of such issues in the future. There is also no evidence these issues caused any significant detriment to the resident around the handling of the resident’s complaint. We have addressed the detriment caused by the landlord’s record keeping and investigation in the above section of the report.
27. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 for the delay at stage 1 of its complaints process. While there were shortcomings in its handling of the complaint, there is no evidence of a long lasting impact caused by providing the incorrect compensation amount, and complaint date. Its compensation offer falls within acceptable amounts within our remedies guidance for failings where there is no significant detriment to the resident. Based on this, we find that there was reasonable redress.

Learning

28. The landlord committed to learn from its misinformation, communication failings, lack of coordination from repairs, and delays which was positive, but it however continued with the same failings. The learning order we have made should assist the landlord explore improvement of services to regularly review its records and identify works it can complete together to ensure timely resolution of multiple issues when it can.
29. The landlord should also ensure that where it and its contractors identify any vulnerabilities, it should record them correctly. This will allow it to consider vulnerabilities when raising, carrying out works, and contacting residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. It may assist the landlord to provide updates within its records around works where multiple issues are booked for the same job. This will allow it to provide appropriate completion dates for each aspect of the repairs raised and avoid multiple attendances and surveys.

Communication

31. There were concerns with the landlord’s communication as it failed to show it kept the resident updated proactively. If delays are likely, it should ensure it explains these at the first opportunity to residents.