London Borough of Waltham Forest (202515475)

Background

1. The resident lives with her partner and her daughter in a 1-bedroom flat within a small purpose-built block. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident who it says describes herself as severely disabled. It also records that the resident’s daughter is vulnerable. The resident reported a flood from a flat above hers on 9 July 2025. She reported concerns that the flood contained human waste. She reported that this had caused damp and mould issues in the property that had damaged her belongings. She said that a pest infestation had emanated from the flat above.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of a waste leak from the flat above causing damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation and her concerns about the use of pesticides.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a waste leak from the flat above causing damp and mould.
4. There was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and her concerns about the use of pesticides.
5. There was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We have seen no evidence that the landlord completed a suitable inspection of the resident’s property to identify the root cause of leaks, damp and mould. Its poor record keeping and follow up led to delays in completing the stain block and in checking the consumer box which was not in line with its repairs policy timescales. The landlord offered some compensation, but it is unclear that it has resolved the leaks, damp and mould issue in the property. This led to our maladministration finding.
7. The landlord’s poor communication led to a delayed response to the landlord securing and cleaning the neighbour’s flat above. As this was the source of the pest infestation it was important for the landlord to gain access without delay to prevent the spread of the fleas to the resident’s property. However, the landlord recognised its failings and offered compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance that provides a suitable resolution.
8. The landlord offered some support to the resident helping her to obtain some goods and to help with food and energy costs which was appropriate. It was also reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its independent living service.
9. The landlord delayed its complaint handling, but it offered appropriate compensation in recognition of the delays. It has shown some learning from the complaint issues and how it treats pest infestations where there are pets which was appropriate.

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.

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

10. The resident was concerned about the impact of the complaint issues on her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they 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 under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this.

What we did investigate

11. We have investigated the period from July 2025 when the resident reported flooding to the landlord to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 21 November 2025.
12. The resident reported flooding from the flat above to the landlord on 9 July 2025 which she felt included human waste. The landlord attended the property the same day in line with its repairs policy 24-hour timescale for emergency repairs which was reasonable. Its contractor said they found no leaking water coming from the flat above. It referred the resident’s request for a deep clean to the landlord. We have not seen the landlord’s surveyor’s reportthat it referred to in its stage 1 complaint response of 4 August 2025 or when this took place. We have also not seen what, if any, follow up actions were agreed and that the landlord updated the resident, which was inappropriate.
13. However, the landlord raised a works order on 16 July 2025 for a stain block and to check the consumer unit. It is unclear whether this action was because of its surveyor’s inspection. The landlord completed a coat of stain block on 1 August 2025 which was within 16 days of the order date within its repair policy timescale of 21 days which was appropriate. However, it delayed the completion of the second coat to 26 August 2025. This meant that the work was completed outside of its repairs policy timescale. The landlord’s records are not clear whether the second appointment was at the resident’s request.
14. The landlord was aware of the need to check the consumer box on 9 July 2025. However, we have seen no records that it completed the check until 26 August 2025. As this could have been a potential hazard if any water had got into the electrics, the landlord should have checked this more urgently in line with its urgent repair policy timescale of 5 days. It took the landlord 49 days which was unreasonable and outside of its repairs policy timescale.
15. We have not seen records that the landlord checked for a water leak from the flat above when its surveyor inspected the property on 25 July 2025. This would have been appropriate for the landlord to check if there was any leak and feed this back to the resident. This was inappropriate. The landlord found some dampness in the resident’s hallway that its independent living service said was potentially caused by the resident’s belongings. However, we would consider that this was not determined by a suitably qualified person. We have not seen that the landlord found the root cause of the damp in the property which was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repairing obligations.
16. The resident told us during this investigation that her partner had to clean the skirting boards and windows to remove mould. She also told us that the airing cupboard had been flooded and some belongings had got mouldy.
17. As the landlord did not dispute that there were some failings, our role is to consider whether the actions it took and the remedy offered suitably were reasonable and in line with our dispute resolution principles.
18. The landlord offered the resident a dehumidifier to help dry the property out that the resident refused due to running costs, although the landlord agreed to cover the costs. The landlord also offered to support the resident helping her to apply to a welfare fund to obtain a fridge freezer, microwave, vacuum cleaner, dinner set, food vouchers and an energy voucher. These were all reasonable actions to take recognising the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities.
19. The landlord offered the resident £720 (inclusive of £150 it had already paid to her for food and essentials) during its internal complaints process. Part of this offer related to its response to the resident’s reports of the pest infestation. We have therefore assigned £350 of the compensation to this complaint issue which includes: £100 for distress for failing to resolve the issues at the flat above, £150 for food and essentials, £50 (out of £100 offered in total) for repeat follow ups and £50 (out of £100 offered in total) for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
20. This evidences that the landlord made some efforts to put things right for the resident in the support it offered and by offering some compensation. However, it is unclear that it has resolved the root cause of the leaks, damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a waste leak from the flat above causing damp and mould.
21. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 for this complaint issue. This is to recognise the additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to properly investigate the cause of the leaks, damp and mould in the property. The resident told us how the complaint issues had impacted on her causing stress to her and her household that was aggravated by her and her household’s vulnerabilities.
22. We have also ordered the landlord to complete an inspection of the resident’s property by a suitably qualified person so it can identify any root cause of leaks, damp and mould in the property.

23. The resident raised her concerns about the pests in the property in her stage 1 complaint of 11 July 2025 saying that there were swarms of flies in the building. As this occurred during the summer, flies would have been more of an issue than in the winter causing the resident distress.
24. The landlord had issues in accessing the upstairs flat as the Police had secured it in July 2025 leading to the landlord needing to force entry on 25 July 2025. The landlord found the flat was in poor condition and need to be cleared out and cleaned. We can see that the landlord had trouble contacting the Police and getting a response. This meant it needed internal approval to organisethe forced entry. It meant the initial delay in clearing and completing the pest treatment in the upstairs flat was not entirely the landlord’s fault.
25. The landlord’s records evidence that due to a dispute with its contractor it did not clean the property as planned on 25 July 2025. The landlord agreed that it left the upstairs flat in poor condition and insecure. The landlord’s internal emails between 29 – 30 July 2025 confirmed that it would need to clean and treat the upstairs flat. This was because the flat was the source of the flea infestation before it could treat the communal areas and the resident’s property. The landlord said it would explain this to the resident and others in the block. However, we have seen no evidence that it did this which was inappropriate leading to the resident’s chase ups causing her additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
26. The landlord arrangedto clean the flat above between 29 July 2025 to 4 August 2025. Following the resident’s chase up of 4 August 2025 it told the resident it was going to start the pest control in the block. It completed the first pest control treatment by 27 August 2025 according to its internal email of that date.It scheduled a second treatment the following week.It is not clear from the landlord’s records exactly when the treatment was completed. We have not seen that it provided suitable updates to the resident during this time leading to the resident’s further chase ups causing her more inconvenience and distress.
27. The resident was concerned about the safety of the chemicals used to treat the flea infestation and her second complaint was more focussed on this issue. She told the landlord that following her own research and contact with her vet that the products were unsafe for her cats. She said that the products should only be used with protective clothing and masks. The landlord relied on the advice of its pest control specialists which was appropriate. It reassured the resident that the chemicals were safe providing some instructions to the resident to keep pets in a spare room that the resident did not have. This was because the property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord maintained this position and the resident subsequently refused the treatment. The resident told us therefore that the property still has fleas.
28. The resident’s further complaint of 7 October 2025 concerned the timing of the landlord’s pest treatment in the communal areas at a time where there would more footfall during the school run time. This was not disputed by the landlord, and it agreed in its complaint response of 21 October 2025 that it should have managed and coordinated this better. It also said that it should have managed the pest control treatment in the flat above quicker and better. The resident told us how her household had been bitten by the fleas and that this has caused her distress and inconvenience which was understandable.
29. We have considered the remedy offered by the landlord and whether this is in line with our dispute resolution principles. The landlord offered the resident £370 comprising: £150 for failing to seal the flat above leading to the environmental issues, £100 for its poor coordination, £50 for repeated follow-ups (out of the £100 for both complaint issues), £20 for a missed appointment and £50 for time and trouble (out of the £100 for both complaint issues)
30. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and also our remedies guidance as above. We have not seen that the landlord considered whether there may be alternative options available taking the resident’s circumstances into account. We have therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its options to see if there are alternative methods that it could use based upon the advice of its pest control service.
31. The Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and her concerns about the use of pesticides.

32. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 11 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 July 2025, and it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 August 2025. This was within 15 working days from the landlord’s acknowledgement which was outside of its complaints policy and the Code’s timescale for a response which was inappropriate.
33. The landlord’s complaints policy requires a response at stage 1 to be made within 10 working days. The Code requires a response at stage 1 within 10 working days from the landlord’s acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require a response at stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
34. The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on 12 August 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation the same day. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 September 2025. This was issued within 21 working days which was slightly outside of the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code’s timescale for a response at stage 2. However, the delay was very small and would not cause significant detriment to the resident.
35. The resident’s made her further complaint to the landlord on 7 October 2025. The landlord issued its response on 21 October 2025 which was within 10 working days as per its complaints policy and the Code. This was reasonable. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 October 2025, and it issued its final complaint response on 21 November 2025. This was again slightly delayed being 23 working days from the complaint date which was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code timescale to respond.
36. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling failings for the resident’s first complaint, and it awarded £100 for complaint handling delays which was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s £100 compensation offer was appropriate. The Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the associated complaints.

Learning

37. The landlord took some learning from the resident’s complaint. It said it was reviewing its scheduling practice to avoid hours where there is high footfall within communal areas during pest treatment. It would also clarify and update its guidance provided to residents regarding pets and treatment safety and improve its coordination between its pest control and caretaking teams. It would also strengthen its communication with residents to ensure concerns would be dealt with promptly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

38. The landlord failed to maintain full and complete records to record the actions it had taken to remedy any leaks and identify the cause of the damp and mould. We recommend that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management (if it has not already done so) against our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.
39. The landlord’s communication was more reactive than proactive. It needed to agree and provide timely updates to the resident to prevent the need for her to chase up for updates.