London Borough of Havering Council (202502362)

Decision
Case ID	202502362
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Havering Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	20 May 2026

Background

1. The resident has complained about delays in repairing a leak that has caused damp and mould in her middle floor property. The resident’s mother (the representative) made the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference, in this report both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak and associated damp and mould

4. There were repeated delays in the landlord progressing the necessary repair works, and a lasting resolution for the damp has still not been achieved more than 2.5 years later. Poor record keeping also contributed to the landlord’s failures.

Complaint handling

5. Though the landlord’s complaint responses were timely, it did not offer appropriate redress for its handling of the repairs. It also failed to monitor or follow through on the commitments made in its final response after the complaints process ended.

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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 17 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports of a leak and associated damp and mould. £50 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 17 June 2026
3	Completing the works order – balcony repairs The landlord must take all steps to ensure the balcony repairs that have been committed to are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due 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 Explain 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 15 July 2026
4	Communication order The landlord must appoint a senior member of staff to oversee the repairs and act as the resident’s single point of contact until the works are completed. The landlord must write to both us and the resident by the due date, confirming the name and role of the appointed staff member. This communication must also include an initial update on the status of the repairs. Thereafter, the landlord must provide written updates to the resident and us at least once per month until the repairs are fully completed.	No later than 17 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to see if she needs any support or assistance with making an application for rehousing.
It is recommended that, once the balcony repairs are complete, the landlord carry out re‑plastering and redecorating to the affected walls, in line with its commitment in the final response, if this has not already been done.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 September 2024	The resident complained there was an ongoing problem with damp and mould on her living room wall, which was being caused by a leak from the flat above. She explained the issue had worsened since she moved into the property, preventing her from decorating.
20 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It partially upheld the complaint due to delays in completing the repair to the flat above. It explained that it had experienced difficulties gaining access to the neighbour’s property but stated it was trying to secure access and resolve the issue.
8 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she had been reporting damp and mould since moving into the property 2 years ago, and despite multiple visits, “nothing [had] been done” due to lack of access to the flat above. She expressed frustration at being unable to decorate and said the ongoing situation had caused significant distress. She explained she felt “let down” by the landlord and asked it to resolve the issues or consider rehousing her.
29 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint, apologising for the delays the resident experienced in resolving the leak. However, it said it was satisfied that actions were being taken to identify and rectify the root cause of the problem and a further site meeting had been arranged for 6 November 2024. As a remedy, it offered to re-plaster and paint the damaged walls once the necessary repairs had been completed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said the damp and mould was still ongoing and the landlord had “done nothing” to rectify the leak from the flat above. She said that the situation had become increasingly distressing and that, as a result, she wished to move from the property.
5 May 2026	During her contact with us, the resident said the leak had still not been resolved and the damp in her living room was ongoing. As an outcome, she said she would like the leak and the damp and mould fully resolved but would ideally like to move from the property.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident reported that she had been experiencing damp and mould since she moved into the property in April 2023. She raised a formal complaint in September 2024. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. In the interests of fairness, this investigation will focus on events from September 2023 onwards, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord’s records do not clearly show when the resident first reported damp and mould affecting her property, which is evidence of poor record keeping. The landlord said it inspected the property on 2 December 2023 and identified damp on the lounge wall, which it assumed was from the balcony of the flat above. However, when its contractor re-attended on 22 March 2024 – 76 working days later, significantly exceeding the 28‑day routine repair target – it failed to act on the initial findings. Instead, it carried out a further inspection, found no visible leak, and suggested damp may be coming from the flat next door rather than above. There is also no evidence that it attempted to inspect the balcony of the flat above during this period, despite its earlier findings, which unnecessarily prolonged the issue and likely caused uncertainty for the resident.
8. On 12 April 2024, the contractor inspected the neighbouring flat, found no leaks, and suggested a possible issue with the chimney. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it followed this up. Once it identified a potential cause, it should have investigated this further. Its failure to do so was inappropriate.
9. The contractor re-attended the resident’s property on 17 April 2024 and concluded that the water staining pointed to the balcony of the flat above – the same conclusion it had reached 4 months earlier. On 1 May 2024, the contractor identified the need for follow-on works to the balcony. However, the landlord did not raise or progress these works, leaving the resident with unresolved issues.
10. The landlord stated it completed a further inspection on 16 July 2024 and raised repairs to the balcony but could not gain access to the flat above to carry out the works. However, it has not provided evidence to show when it raised or attempted these repairs, which highlights further record keeping issues and limits our ability to assess its actions.
11. In its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024, the landlord said it was doing “everything possible” to secure access but, the available evidence does not support this. It had not recorded any proactive steps to contact the neighbour from the flat above when they did not initially provide access. It did not make contact until 4 October 2024, when it appropriately arranged access for 15 October 2024. The neighbour granted access on that date, but the landlord found no evidence that the leak originated from that property and concluded it needed to inspect 3 additional flats to identify the source.
12. In its final response on 29 October 2024, the landlord stated that its surveyors and contractors attended on 15 October 2024 but were unable to erect scaffolding to access the balcony above due to overgrown bushes and also identified that the leak might originate from other properties. It said its contractor attended again on 25 October 2024 to inspect the external pipework and recommended a full inspection, and that it had scheduled a further site meeting for 6 November 2024.
13. While these steps indicate some effort to progress the investigation, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm whether the site meeting took place, what actions followed, or whether it completed a full inspection of the external pipework. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and prevents us from assessing whether it took appropriate and timely steps to resolve the issue.
14. On 25 November 2024, the resident requested a temporary move. Internal correspondence shows the surveyor considered the request and considered that the issue was not severe enough to justify this. The surveyor reiterated this position on 15 January 2025, referring to a photograph showing a small area of damp staining on an internal wall. While the landlord appropriately assessed the request, it is unclear whether it communicated this decision and its reasons to the resident.
15. Between 8 January 2025 and 10 February 2025, the landlord carried out further investigations into the cause of the leak, including inspections of the balcony to the flat above, a neighbouring property, and the communal loft space. However, these investigations were inconclusive. On 7 March 2025, the surveyor escalated the matter. While this was an appropriate step, it was taken almost a month later, which was unreasonable given the delays the resident had already experienced. This prolonged uncertainty for her and contributed to further delays in resolving the issue.
16. On 20 March 2025, the landlord’s repairs manager visited the resident but was unable to access the flat above. They concluded the balcony was the likely source of the water ingress and raised extensive repairs. Given previous access issues, they asked the housing officer to arrange access with the neighbour, who was contacted the same day. However, delays in responses from the landlord and additional queries from the neighbour slowed progress in arranging access. Internal correspondence on 16 and 24 April 2025 states the resident was contacting the landlord daily to chase the repairs, highlighting the continued impact on her.
17. A visit to the flat above appears to have been scheduled for 20 May 2025. However, the neighbour reported that the landlord did not attend. There is no record of this appointment in the landlord’s records, raising further concerns about its record keeping. It then took no further action for 4 months, until 26 September 2025, when it said it was exploring alternative access options to the balcony, including scaffolding. While it was appropriate to consider alternative means of access, the delay in doing so was unreasonable and prolonged the resolution of the issue.
18. On 12 January 2026, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property, noting minor mould around the windows in the lounge, bathroom, and bedroom. It advised the resident this could be managed with a mould wash and increased ventilation. Following further reports of damp from the resident, internal correspondence dated 20 January 2026 shows the surveyor suggested re‑raising the scaffolding works, as they were unsure whether these had previously been progressed. However, there is no evidence the landlord followed this up. This lack of action was unreasonable, particularly as it was aware the issue remained unresolved.
19. The representative told us that the resident has autism and learning difficulties, and that the situation caused her significant distress, particularly due to repeated visits from unfamiliar individuals for inspections. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for her to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have therefore not investigated this aspect further. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
20. In May 2026, the resident told us that the leak remained unresolved. She advised that the landlord had not plastered or painted the living room walls as it had committed to in its final response, and that she had instead wallpapered over the affected wall because it was unsightly. She said she wished to move to another property because of the ongoing issues. It is not within our remit to require a landlord to rehouse a resident. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide appropriate support and assistance with any application for rehousing.
21. When we requested an update, the landlord told us that the leak remained unresolved and that it required scaffolding to complete repairs to the balcony. However, it had been unable to install scaffolding due to access issues. It confirmed it had agreed to re-plaster and redecorate the affected internal walls, once repairs are complete. We have made an order and recommendation in relation to these matters.
22. The landlord has not yet completed the works required to address the damp ingress, more than 2.5 years after it first identified the issue. While there were some mitigating factors, repeated failings in its handling of the repairs have unreasonably prolonged the process and delayed resolution. These delays have likely caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
23. The landlord did not offer any compensation in its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £700 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in line with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

24. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code. The landlord adhered to these timescales, but there were other failures.
25. The landlord does not have a compensation policy but stated it will consider any compensation requests in line with our guidance. Despite upholding the complaint at both stages, it made no offer of compensation to the resident. Although it proposed re‑plastering the damaged areas and painting the living room in its final response, which was a positive step, it should also have considered financial redress. Its failure to do so was unreasonable given the identified failings.
26. The landlord also failed to follow through on the commitments it made after the complaints process ended, despite stating it would monitor the case until it was resolved. The repair issues remain outstanding 19 months after its final response. The landlord should have tracked the actions identified at stage 2 and provided regular updates to the resident. Its failure to do so was unreasonable, resulting in a missed opportunity to resolve the issues and to use the complaints process to put matters right.
27. We consider a payment of £50 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures identified. This is in accordance with our compensation guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Learning

28. The landlord should consider implementing a system for tracking and monitoring outstanding commitments made during and after the complaints process. This will help prevent delays and ensure the complaints process is used effectively to resolve issues.
29. The landlord should ensure it has effective processes in place to identify vulnerabilities at the earliest opportunity and take these into account when prioritising repairs, so that its response reflects the resident’s individual circumstances.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord provided limited repair records, resulting in significant gaps in the information available. Although it supplied a timeline of surveyor notes for the purposes of our investigation, we were unable to verify the events it described against its repair records. Some events referenced in its complaint responses were also not reflected in its documented records. The absence of accurate, timely records limits the landlord’s ability to demonstrate what action it took. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately and consistently record the outcome of every appointment and inspection.

Communication

31. There was a lack of effective proactive communication from the landlord. It did not keep the resident informed of the progress of the repairs as frequently as it should have, particularly given her vulnerabilities, causing her to chase and request updates, especially after issuing its final response.