London Borough of Islington (202441431)

Decision
Case ID	202441431
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	5 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom studio flat within an estate block. The resident has told us she is considered vulnerable. She also has a number of medical conditions, which she says have been exacerbated by the conditions within the property. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of damp, mould, condensation, and cold temperatures within the property. She has said there are structural issues with the property, and the walls and floor of the building do not have adequate insulation. The resident also raised concerns about the suitability of the bath and whether the property had been surveyed for asbestos. She has told us the bath and asbestos issues are no longer matters she would like us to consider.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the reports of damp, mould, condensation and cold temperatures within the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, condensation, and cold temperatures within the property.
5. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for the failures in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. While the landlord often acted in line with its policies, there were some failures in its response to the reports of damp, mould, condensation and cold temperatures. It delayed reinstalling radiators, missed an appointment and took until April 2025 to resolve ventilation issues identified in June 2024. Although some of the landlord’s actions were reasonable, we are not satisfied it offered appropriate compensation for the failures we have identified.
7. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It has recognised this and offered £50 compensation, which aligned with its policy. We are satisfied this was fair and reasonable.

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 writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 02 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £984.36 compensation made up as follows: £759.36 for the loss of heating for 48 days between December 2024 and January 2025, to replace the £83.32 previously offered. £25 previously offered for failing to attend and inspect for extractor fan installation. £100 previously offered for the distress the resident was caused. £100 additional compensation for delay in installing the extractor fans and any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 02 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £50 compensation it previously offered for its handling of the complaint, if it has not already done so.
We recommend the landlord contact the resident to schedule a damp and mould inspection.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 January 2025	The resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord, stating: The property was extremely cold during the winter. The landlord had delayed reinstalling radiators that it had removed. The landlord had not adequately tested the property for mould.   The resident also questioned why the landlord had installed a humidity sensor. She said the landlord knew the cold temperature was due to problems with the structure of the building.   The resident notified the landlord of her medical condition and said she was considered vulnerable.
19 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In relation to the cold, damp, mould, and condensation issues, it said: In accordance with its complaints policy, it had only investigated matters within the last 12 months. A surveyor attended on 27 June 2024 and found no mould in the property. A surveyor attended on 28 November and recommended the installation of a humidity sensor. This would allow the landlord to monitor the conditions in the property over the winter period and assess what repairs were necessary. It was sorry its repair contractor had not attended a meeting scheduled for 12 December 2024. Its repair team would contact the resident to schedule an appointment to inspect the property for the installation of extractor fans. It was sorry for a delay in reinstalling the radiators. The radiators had been removed on 13 December 2024 and reinstalled on 30 January 2025. The delay was due to suspected asbestos. It had put measures in place to monitor the temperature in the property, and its repair team were working towards a resolution. The landlord offered the resident £258.32 compensation, broken down as: £25 for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint. £25 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint. £83.32 for the delay in reinstalling the radiators. £25 for failing to attend and inspect for extractor fan installation. £100 for the distress the resident was caused.
20 February 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP), stating:   She was unhappy the landlord delayed sending its stage 1 response. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address her complaint about her increased energy bills. The landlord had not recognised the impact the conditions in the property had on her health. The landlord’s surveyors had not adequately inspected the property for mould and condensation, and the resident had to highlight issues. The landlord had not responded to her concerns about the building’s roof and walls and the lack of insulation. The cold, mould and condensation were persistent issues and the landlord had not committed to a long-term resolution.
20 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In relation to the damp, mould, condensation, and cold conditions in the property, it said: While the resident said she raised her complaint on 15 January 2025, it was registered on the landlord’s complaint management system on 28 January 2025. There had been a delay in responding to some residents. However, it had already apologised and offered compensation for delays in its stage 1 response. It would only pay compensation for service failure resulting from works or the omission of works it was responsible for. The resident’s increased utility bill was not a result of work or the omission of work by the landlord. So, it would not pay compensation for this. The delay to the installation of the radiators had been fully addressed in its stage 2 complaint response. Now these were installed, the heating in the property should improve. A surveyor attended on 10 January 2025 and identified mould. This was due to inadequate heating resulting from the absence of radiators in the property. These conditions should improve now the radiators had been reinstalled. To resolve the mould, A 3-stage mould treatment had been completed, and sealant had been applied to the underside of the door to the main entrance. Following its contractor’s visit, it was awaiting a report into the installation of the extractor fans.   The landlord apologised for the delay in reinstalling the radiators and for the impact this had on the temperature within the property. It offered the £258.32 compensation awarded in its stage 1 response, as it felt this was fair and reasonable for the failures it identified.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked our Service to investigate as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said: The property remained extremely cold during the winter, and the landlord had not offered a resolution for the issue. The landlord had not resolved the damp, mould, and condensation issues. The landlord’s surveyor had told her the temperature issues were due to poor insulation in the building’s walls and roof. The landlord had not agreed to pay further compensation for her distress, inconvenience, and increased utility bills. She would like to be rehoused if the landlord cannot resolve the temperature, damp, mould, and condensation issues.

 

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 reports of damp, mould, condensation and cold temperatures within the property.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. The resident told us that her previous property also had temperature issues. She also told us about the difficult circumstances in which she left that property. These events happened before her tenancy started in July 2023. We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time of an issue occurring. This allows the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate and resolve matters while they are live. Evidence also becomes less available and reliable as time passes. For this reason, we do not usually investigate historical issues. We consider events within a reasonable time before the complaint, which is usually 12 months. The resident made her formal complaint in January 2025. In the interest of fairness, we have considered events from January 2024 onwards. References to events before January 2024 are for context only.
9. The resident has sent us information relating to issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on 20 March 2025, including;
   1. The landlord’s handling of bath/shower works.
   2. A move into temporary accommodation, requested in relation to the bath/shower works.
   3. Alleged poor communication and a lack of response to various correspondence.
   4. The landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the kitchen.
   5. An unpleasant odour in the kitchen.
   6. Issues with pipework near the boiler.
   7. The resident being unable to access her Home Connections account.
10. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the opportunity to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint directly with the landlord about the above matters. Therefore, we do not have the power to investigate these. The resident may raise these matters directly with the landlord as a formal complaint, if necessary.
11. The resident told us about a billing issue with her energy provider. We can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions, or the actions of its agents. We cannot investigate the actions of independent third parties that the landlord does not control. In this case, the supply of energy and the charges for it are not acts or omissions by the landlord under the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. This means we do not have the power to investigate the resident’s complaint about her energy bill
12. The resident has provided details of the outcome of her public liability claim against the landlord’s insurance for damaged personal belongings. We cannot determine liability or negligence, nor can consider a complaint about the insurer, for the same reasons set out in paragraph 11 of this report.
13. The resident has told us about the impact the condition of the property had on 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 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 the personal injury element of this complaint further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s response to the reports of cold temperatures

14. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to reports of cold temperatures in the property. She has said the issue is due to the age and structure of the building and poor insulation in the walls and roof.
15. The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. On 16 May 2024 the resident raised concerns that during the winter there had been low temperatures in the property. On 17 May 2024 she asked the landlord to inspect the property to identify the cause of the temperature issues. The landlord inspected the property on 27 June 2024 and recorded an internal temperature of 27°C. The landlord completed the inspection outside its 20‑working‑day timescale. This delay is unlikely to affect the outcome of the landlord’s investigation. The resident reported that excess cold affected the property during the winter period, but she raised the issue in May 2024. The landlord could not have assessed the property in winter conditions even if it had met its repair timescale.
16. The resident raised further concerns about the temperature of the property on 14 October 2024 during a mould inspection by the landlord. The landlord’s repair records show temperatures of 19.8°C and 18.5°C were recorded in the hallway and bedroom/living room respectively on the same day.
17. The resident continued to report extremely cold temperatures in the property, stating this was due to structural issues. The landlord is responsible for structural repairs under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord inspected the exterior of the property, including the roof and a downpipe, in November and December 2024. Its repair records show no evidence that the reported temperature issues were due to any structural disrepair.
18. During the inspection on 28 November 2024 the surveyor found the temperature in the property ranged from 17.3°C to 19.3°C. The surveyor did identify that the property was at risk of cold bridging, which in part, led to the recommendation to install a humidity sensor to monitor the conditions in the property. The surveyor also noted the property did not have extractor fans in either the kitchen or bathroom. They recommended the landlord further consider installing extractor fans. They also recommended the removal of the radiators to allow for a mould treatment on the walls behind the radiators.
19. The landlord removed the radiators on 13 December 2024. The landlord fitted the humidity sensor on 19 December 2024. By 24 December 2024 the landlord had decided to pause the radiator work, pending the results of asbestos testing. The resident has confirmed the landlord notified her of this, although it is not entirely clear when this was. The landlord has said it was necessary to pause the work following the discovery of asbestos in a neighbouring property. It believed asbestos could also be present in the resident’s property. Considering the risk asbestos could pose to both the resident and the landlord’s staff, the decision to pause work to test for asbestos was reasonable. Although this left the resident without adequate heating for an extended period of time during a cold time of year.
20. By 10 January 2025 the landlord had completed the asbestos testing. No asbestos was detected in the samples the landlord had collected. The evidence indicates that from this date onwards the landlord ought reasonably to have known it could reinstall the radiators. The landlord reinstalled the radiators on 30 January 2025. This was outside of its 20-working day repair timeframe.
21. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident temporary heaters while the property was without radiators. As a result, the resident was without adequate heating for more than 6 weeks, during one of the coldest times of the year. This is concerning, particularly as the resident is considered vulnerable and given her reports of cold temperatures in the property.
22. In its complaint responses the landlord said it would monitor data from the humidity sensor for 3 months. The landlord has provided the sensor data. We note that the readings from December 2023 to the end of January 2024 include the period when the property did not have radiators. This will have inevitably impacted the overall results, as the property could not have been adequately heated until the radiators were reinstalled. We expect this will have brought down the average temperature recorded by the humidity sensor, although there is no evidence to say by how much. Nevertheless, the humidity sensor recorded an average temperature in the property of 17.96°C over 90 days between December 2024 and March 2025. The landlord said the readings showed the temperature in the property was acceptable.
23. We recognise the resident has said she was told the humidity sensor was faulty. However, we have not seen evidence to support this. In her correspondence with the landlord the resident has questioned why it installed the humidity sensor. We are satisfied the landlord has clearly explained why it installed the humidity sensor in its complaint responses. Installing the humidity sensor demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and was committed to identifying any potential issues. This was a fair and reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about the cold.
24. The resident has said that by law the landlord must ensure the temperature in the property is between 18°C and 21°C. There is no single law stating what temperature a home must be kept at. However, we would usually expect a landlord to demonstrate it had considered a resident’s concerns, particularly when these concern potential hazards, like excess cold. In this case, in response to the resident’s concerns the landlord inspected the property for disrepair issues, took temperature readings during its inspections, and monitored the overall temperature for a 90-day period across the winter. We are satisfied this demonstrates the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns about the temperature in the property.
25. The resident continued to report cold conditions in the property after the landlord’s stage 2 response. In June 2025 the landlord identified that the existing radiators would not sufficiently heat the property during cold periods. In August 2025 it replaced all radiators in the property. This shows that the landlord continued to take action to improve conditions in the property after it had established that the temperature was acceptable. As the landlord has taken these actions, and evidence shows the temperature is acceptable, we have not made orders for further works or inspections.

The landlord’s response to damp, mould and condensation

26. The landlord has a multistage approach to damp and mould which is set out in its damp and mould policy. This, in part, states:
    1. New reports of damp and mould will be inspected within 20 working days.
    2. Continued reports of persistent and unresolved damp and mould following an inspection and remedial works will be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process and inspected within 10 working days.
    3. Continued reports of persistent and unresolved damp and mould after the stage 2 inspection and remedial works will be escalated to stage 3 of the landlord’s process and reviewed by senior staff within 10 working days.
27. The policy sets out the landlord’s response timeframes across all stages. It aims to:
    1. Raise any associated repairs following inspections within 3 working days.
    2. Respond to urgent mould in 24 hours.
    3. Respond to non-urgent mould in 20 working days.
28. The resident reported mould and condensation in the property on 16 May 2024. She raised further concerns on 17 May 2024 and on 5 June 2024. The landlord inspected on 27 June 2024, and its repair records indicate it found no mould. The landlord completed its inspection outside of the 20 working days timescale. It is unlikely this delay significantly changed the outcome for the resident, as no mould was found. The landlord did identify that the property was poorly ventilated and this contributed to condensation. It raised a work order to install a condensation control fan.
29. The landlord has said an electrician attended on 9 July 2024 to fit the condensation control fan. However, this work did not go ahead as the property had no existing extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen. It is not clear the landlord followed up on the installation of the extractor fans until November 2024. This indicates a failure to track and monitor recommended work.
30. The resident reported damp and mould on 4 October 2024. Under its damp and mould policy, the landlord should have considered whether there were any outstanding recommendations from past inspections carried out in the last 6 months. Instead, the landlord completed the inspection on 15 October 2024. The landlord identified mould in the hallway, bathroom, and inside a kitchen cupboard. It arranged works to a blown window and further investigations into the exterior of the property, including the roof.
31. The landlord completed a mould treatment to the inspected areas on 23 October 2024, and on 1 November 2024 it inspected the exterior of the property, including the roof, and found no issues.
32. The landlord completed works to the window on 14 November 2024. This fell 3 days outside of the landlord’s routine repair timeframes. We note this work required several visits, and there is no evidence this minor delay had an adverse impact on the resident.
33.  The resident reported further mould on 19 November 2024. As this was within 2 months of the remedial work being completed, the landlord scheduled a further inspection, in line with its policy. The landlord inspected the property on 28 November 2024, within the required timeframes. In relation to the damp, it found that:
    1. Mould previously identified behind the radiators had not been treated.
    2. The absence of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen allowed moisture to travel throughout the rest of the property.
    3. An internal rainwater pipe may be defective, resulting in water pooling within a cupboard.
34. The landlord recommended the installation of a humidity sensor, removal of the radiators and treatment of the mould on the walls behind them, and a CCTV survey of the rainwater pipe. It also recommended further investigation into installing extractor fans in the property.
35. On 9 December 2024 the landlord completed the CCTV survey of the rainwater pipe. It found no issues. This was completed in line with its repair timeframes. The landlord’s repair contractor recommended a roofer reattend and check the membrane around stack and gully outlets. The landlord inspected the roof on 20 December 2024, within its policy timeframes, and found no repair issues.
36. The landlord scheduled an appointment to assess the installation of extractor fans for 12 December 2024. The landlord missed this appointment, and it was rescheduled and completed on 13 February 2025. Following this, the landlord finished fitting the extractor fans on 4 April 2025. The landlord identified the need to install extractor fans in June 2024. It therefore took the landlord more than 9 months to complete this work. This fell significantly outside of its routine or planned repairs timeframes.
37. The resident reported further damp and mould on 10 January 2025. The landlord attended on 30 January 2025 and determined the mould was due to inadequate heating caused by the removal of the radiators. It completed a mould wash, and applied sealant to the underside of the main door. This work was completed in accordance with the landlord’s policy timeframes.
38. We note the landlord installed extractor fans in April 2025. Following this, it inspected the property and determined it was free of damp and mould. The resident has recently told us that the damp and mould issues have not been resolved. However, we have not been provided evidence to support this. We are aware there was a leak in the property in November 2025, so it is unclear whether current reports of damp and mould relate to the leak. In any case, current reports of damp and mould relate to events after the landlord’s stage 2 response, so these fall outside of the scope of this investigation. Therefore, we have made no orders in respect of these reports. However, in the interest of resolving matters, we have recommended the landlord inspect the resident’s property for damp and mould.

Putting things right

39. Overall, while the landlord often acted in line with its policies, there were some shortfalls in the landlord’s response to the reports of cold, damp, mould, and condensation in the property. The landlord has recognised some of these failures. Namely, a missed appointment and delays to reinstalling the radiators. The landlord has apportioned £208.32 of the total £258.32 compensation for its handling of the damp, cold, mould, and condensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £83.32 for the delay in reinstalling the radiators.
    2. £25 for failing to attend and inspect for extractor fan installation.
    3. £100 for the distress the resident was caused
40. The landlord’s missed appointment procedure says it will provide an apology if an appointment is missed. The landlord went above this by offering £25 compensation, this was fair and appropriate.
41. It is not clear how the landlord calculated the £83.32 compensation for the delay in reinstalling the radiators. The landlord’s Home Procedure, Refunds Compensation & Remedies guidance sets out how the landlord should calculate compensation for loss of heating. This says the landlord will pay £15.82 per day for the loss of heating over 5 or more consecutive days. Under the policy, any payment is backdated to the start of the heating loss period.
42. The landlord’s repair records indicate it removed the resident’s radiators on 13 December 2024. It’s repair record has a target date of 30 December 2024, suggesting the work ought to have been completed by 30 December 2024 at the latest. This would have still been a considerable amount of time to be without heating, particularly during the winter. In any case, due to the delay the resident was without heating supply until 30 January 2025, which was 48 days. So, under the landlord’s policy, it should compensate her £759.36 (15.82 x 48) for the loss of supply. We have therefore ordered the landlord to increase the £83.32 compensation it has already offered by £676.04 to a total of £759.36 for the loss of heating.
43. The landlord offered £100 for the overall distress and inconvenience it caused the resident. We are not satisfied this is proportionate to the landlord’s failures and the impact on the resident. This is because the landlord has not recognised that it identified an issue with ventilation in the property in July 2024. But it did not resolve this until April 2025, when it installed extractor fans. During this period the resident reported multiple cases of mould growth and condensation in the property, and the poor ventilation evidently contributed to this. In recognition of this, and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation.
44. We have made a finding of maladministration by the landlord for its response to the damp, mould, condensation and cold. This accounts for the shortfalls identified in this report but also recognises the occasions that the landlord acted in line with its policies.
45. We acknowledge the resident would like the landlord to pay compensation for her alleged increased utility bills. There is no evidence the resident’s utility bills have increased because of a service failure by the landlord. So, we have made no order in respect of this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

46. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets the standards and best practice the landlord must follow when handling a complaint, including the timeframes in which the landlord must answer a complaint.
47. In accordance with its policy and the Code, the landlord should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5-working days. The landlord should respond to complaints in 10-working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1 and 20-working days at stage 2. The resident complained on 15 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 February 2025 and responded on 19 February 2025. Both the acknowledgment and the response were outside of the required timeframes.
48. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 20 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 February 2025, within the required timescales. The landlord responded to the complaint on 20 March 2025, which was within the required timescales.
49. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay and the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may pay compensation of £25 for each month a complaint is delayed. Overall, it took a little over 1 month to answer the stage 1 complaint. So, we are satisfied this payment was fair, reasonable and in line with its policy. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

50. We expect landlords to take a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to damp and mould. This, in part, means identifying the root cause of damp and mould as early as possible and addressing issues proactively and in reasonable time.
51. The landlord identified ventilation issues in June 2024, but after its appointment in July 2024 it did not consider the possibility of installing fans further until October 2024. The landlord could improve matters by adopting a more proactive approach to addressing the underlying causes of damp, mould and condensation, rather than relying on reports by residents.
52. The resident has often questioned how the landlord’s actions would resolve alleged structural issues with the property. This indicates a loss of trust in the landlord’s repair process. In cases where trust is compromised, honest and open responses are necessary to repair the relationship. The landlord may have improved its communication by managing the resident’s expectations from an early stage. Particularly around the limits of its repair obligations where there was no disrepair issue.