Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202525255)

Decision
Case ID	202525255
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives at the property with her partner and 3 children. The landlord is aware that the resident’s children have vulnerabilities. Between 2018 and 2025, the resident reported issues with leaks, damp and mould in the property on several occasions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Unreasonably delayed addressing the damp and mould in the resident’s property, communicated poorly with her, and failed to take appropriate steps to put things right. As of the date of this report, the evidence shows that the issue remains outstanding.
   2. Failed to adhere to its complaint-handling timescales and did not keep the resident informed of delays.

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: This is provided by a staff member director level or above. 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 28 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,600 made up as follows: £1,500 for its handling of her reports of leaks, damp and mould. £100 for its handling of her complaint. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026
3	Inspection Order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. 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 full property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out:   Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards.  The most likely cause of the damp and mould. 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 resolution to the issue. 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 28 May 2026
4	Completing the works The landlord must take all necessary steps to fully rectify all outstanding damp and mould related repairs at the property. In doing so, it must: Complete a post-work inspection with the resident to confirm all works have been completed. Provide us with documentary evidence of the above, including reports and photographs of any work undertaken. If the landlord cannot complete the works by the due date set, it must explain to us, by the same date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or   The steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 25 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the landlord has not already done so, we recommend that it contacts the resident to discuss her bathroom adaptation request and provide an update on the status of her application.
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about its handling of her bathroom adaptation request/occupational health application. If so, it must respond to this in line with its complaint processes.
We recommend that the landlord provides refresher complaint handling training to its staff if this has not been delivered recently. This should be done with the aim of ensuring complaint handling timescales are consistently met.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 April 2025	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She reported that the property had long‑standing issues with leaks, damp and mould that remained unresolved respite her repeated reports since 2018 and several contractor visits. She explained that the conditions in the home, particularly the bathroom, were unsafe for her family, particularly her disabled children. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s communication, missed follow-ups, and its failure to carry out specialist inspections and repairs it had previously promised.
19 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the “significant” delays and poor communication during its handling of the repairs, dating back to 2018. As an outcome to the complaint, it planned to carry out the necessary investigations and would monitor all outstanding works through to completion.
17 June 2025	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because the landlord had failed to undertake a damp and mould inspection and had only completed some of the outstanding repairs.
23 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the continued delays. It confirmed that it would undertake a further inspection on 1 August 2025 to ensure all outstanding works were fully identified and progressed. It also confirmed that a full refurbishment of the resident’s bathroom had been approved and reassured her of its commitment to completing all outstanding works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because the landlord had not completed the outstanding remedial works. As an outcome, she wants the landlord to undertake the required repairs to resolve the damp and mould, replace the bathroom and pay her compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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	Reports of leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The landlord confirmed that it had identified failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, some of which dated back to 2018. However, it did not provide any specific examples of these failings within its complaint responses, nor did it supply any repair records from before February 2021. While this indicates shortcomings in the landlord’s repair record‑keeping, the absence of earlier records prevents us from assessing the landlord’s actions prior to 2021.
7. The resident has raised issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. As explained above, the landlord offered to replace the resident’s bathroom within its stage 2 response. The evidence shows that the resident declined the landlord’s proposed specification in August 2025 and instead requested that the bathroom be adapted to meet her disabled son’s needs. As of the date of this report, approval for the adaptations had not been granted, and the bathroom replacement therefore remained outstanding. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. If the resident is dissatisfied with the progress of the bathroom adaptation request, she should raise a new complaint with the landlord.
8. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs has negatively impacted on 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. 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 an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

 What we did investigate

9. The landlord has a duty under the Decent Homes Standard to ensure resident’s homes are free from damp and mould hazards. From October 2025, it also has a further obligation under Awaab’s Law to investigate reports of damp, mould and other significant hazards.
10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould issues in a timely and effective manner and will communicate clearly and regularly with residents about the actions it plans to take. While the policy does not specify target timescales for completing damp and mould repairs, the landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency or urgent repairs will be attended to within 2 to 24 hours, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
11. On 8 February 2021, the resident reported a roof leak that was impacting 3 bedrooms and the bathroom. The landlord subsequently closed the repair as “complete” on 24 February 2021. As the repair records do not show what repair priority was assigned, we cannot assess whether the landlord attended within its target timescales. Additionally, the records do not clearly indicate what work, if any, was carried out.
12. On 27 May 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the bathroom wall tiles were loose. It then attended the property within its target timescales on 8 June 2022. However, the records do not make clear what work was undertaken.
13. On 15 May 2023, the resident reported that the external downpipe was leaking and causing damp on the internal bathroom wall. The landlord appropriately attended within 3 working days cleared debris and refixed the downpipe. However, there is no evidence that it assessed the inside of the property to determine whether any remedial works were required to the bathroom wall.
14. The landlord’s internal records show that during the appointment on 18 May 2023, the operative also noted that the external soil pipe was “embedded into the wall with insulation and damp getting behind it and into the bathroom wall” and recommended that it be replaced. However, there is no evidence that any follow‑on work was raised to address this recommendation.
15. The resident contacted the landlord 17 months later, on 8 October 2024 to report that the plasterwork in the bathroom was damp and mouldy. On 5 November 2024, the resident informed the landlord that several contractors had attended—3 on that same morning—but each advised that they could not carry out repairs because the property was too wet and damaged. The landlord did not provide any repair records to evidence these visits, which reflects poor record‑keeping. However, as it did not dispute the resident’s account in its complaint responses, it is reasonable to conclude that her reports accurately reflect events.
16. In the resident’s correspondence of 5 November 2024, she informed the landlord that “severe damp and mould inside and outside the property had left the bathroom unusable” and asked its housing team for assistance in resolving the issue. Although the landlord took some reasonable steps by following up with its contractor, it failed to communicate these actions to the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for this failure within stage 1 response.
17. On 28 November 2024, the landlord raised a repair to inspect the rainwater pipe on the side of the property, as it was suspected to be causing tiles to fall off in the bathroom and contributing to damp and mould in the loft. There is no evidence that the landlord attended the property and the repair remained open for 319 calendar days before being marked as ‘complete’ on 13 October 2025.
18. On 3 February 2025, the landlord raised a new repair to complete a “comprehensive survey of the loft, roof, downpipe, external insulation and plumbing in bathroom, causing severe damp and mould”. This job was closed by the landlord as “complete” on 17 February 2025. However, the landlord has not provided any copies of inspection reports, which is further evidence of poor record keeping. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that the inspection did take place, because within the resident’s request to make a complaint on 14 April 2025, she said that a supervisor had attended and “confirmed the serious nature of the repair worked required”.
19. We have seen no evidence that the landlord progressed the works between 18 February 2025 and 29 April 2025, which was a further unnecessary delay for the resident.
20. Following a further inspection appointment on 30 April 2025, the landlord appropriately instructed its contractor to raise the necessary works. It then communicated its intended actions to the resident in its stage 1 response, issued 20 calendar days later. The remedial actions and updates included:
    1. Arranging a CCTV survey of the soil stack and external drains to identify whether they were contributing to the leak affecting the bathroom wall.
    2. Removing and refitting the bath and associated fittings.
    3. Removing the temporary sheeting on the bathroom wall to inspect the underlying staining.
    4. Checking for internal leaks in the bathroom and securing the loose toilet to the floor.
    5. Cleaning condensation‑related mould in the bathroom and bedrooms.
    6. Arranging scaffolding to repair the slipped roof tile, remove moss from the rear roof tiles, and verify loft insulation and ventilation.
    7. Repairing the faulty bathroom window handle and arranging an inspection of the rusting radiator.
    8. Confirming that the external wall insulation system showed no signs of damp or mould, though routine maintenance would be required over time.
    9. Addressing the presence of woodlice under the bath, which were thought to be linked to damp conditions and expected to reduce once leaks were repaired.
21. This was a positive update from the landlord. However, it was the first time it had provided the resident with any form of repair plan, despite her initial reports dating back to October 2024—a delay of 7 months. Given the delay the landlord could also have gone further by setting out the expected timescales for each repair.
22. The landlord’s internal retrospective explanations (from January 2026) explain that some of the repairs listed above were completed. However, the lack of available documentary evidence means it is unclear which repairs the landlord completed after the stage 1 response, or when they were carried out. However, it is reasonable to conclude that many were not completed within the expected timeframes, as the landlord apologised for delays in its stage 2 response.
23. As part of its stage 2 actions, the landlord carried out a further inspection on 1 August 2025. It’s internal records noted that all bedrooms and living areas were free of any damp and mould. It also recorded that a leak had been identified in the bathroom, “travelling down the side of and under the bath”, but stated this had already been addressed under a previous repair completed on 31 July 2025. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the assessment of its suitably qualified contractors there is no evidence that it communicated the findings to the resident, who therefore believed that works were still outstanding.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award compensation when resolving complaints, particularly for inconvenience and avoidable repair delays. Despite this, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for the failures it had acknowledged at both complaint stages. This omission was unreasonable and not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
25. The communication failures continued when the landlord:
    1. Did not respond to the resident’s email of 7 August 2025, in which she requested a detailed summary of the matters discussed during the inspection on 1 August 2025, including agreed actions, expected timelines, and deadlines for each stage of the works.
    2. Failed to reply when the resident escalated her complaint to us on 10 September 2025 and copied it into her email, stating that she believed there were ongoing mould issues in the bathroom and throughout the property, including the roof void and external walls.
    3. Did not engage when, on 9 October 2025, the resident contacted her local councillor and MP—again copying it into the email—and explained that the root cause of the damp and mould had not been addressed, leaving the property in a worse and unsafe condition.
26. It is particularly concerning that, despite being aware of the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household, the landlord failed to respond to her reports.
27. Given the reported condition of the bathroom, it was positive that in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it agreed to replace the full bathroom. It also promptly visited the resident on 1 August 2025 to discuss design and finish preferences. However, as noted earlier, the resident declined the landlord’s standard design and its subsequent offer to install additional grab rails, due to her son’s specific needs. Despite this, it is evident that the landlord relied on the fact that the bathroom was scheduled for replacement, rather than addressing the resident’s primary concern about damp and mould. The landlord had an obligation to respond to her reports and ensure the property remained free from damp and mould hazards until the bathroom replacement was completed.
28. On 18 March 2026, we advised the landlord that the resident had reported ongoing damp and mould in the property and that this could be a hazard under Awaab’s law. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange an inspection of the property 22 working days later, on 20 April 2026. This was a further unreasonable delay.
29. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of severe maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This has been calculated in line with our compensation policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

30. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 and will inform the resident of the expected timescales for response. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
31. The resident made her complaint on 14 April 2025, and the landlord appropriately acknowledged it the next working day. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 22 working days later, on 19 May 2025. This exceeded the maximum timescales outlined in its complaints policy. We have also seen no evidence that it updated the resident about the delays. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
32. The Code requires landlords to track and complete outstanding complaint actions. It was therefore inappropriate that after the landlord issued its stage 1 response, it did not take ownership of monitoring the outstanding repairs through to resolution or provide the resident with regular progress updates using an agreed method of communication.
33. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 June 2025, and the landlord appropriately acknowledged it the same day.
34. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 July 2025, taking 26 working days. Although this was within the maximum extended timeframe, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the delay, contrary to its complaints policy and the Code.
35. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings in its handling of the substantive issue within both complaint responses. Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case.
36. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
37. For the reasons outlined above we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with our compensation policy.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate, which meant it could not evidence key actions. This undermined transparency and prevented a full assessment of events. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate and timely records of all correspondence and repairs.

Communication

39. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout its handling of the case was poor and demonstrates the need for clearer and more proactive engagement. Effective communication plays a key role in an effective repairs and complaints process, and the landlord should reflect on how it can strengthen its approach when interacting with residents.