City of Westminster Council (202453314)

Decision
Case ID	202453314
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	21 May 2026

Background

The resident and his wife (referred to jointly and individually as ‘the resident’ in this report) live with their teenage children in a 2-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. They have reported a recurring damp and mould issue affecting multiple rooms in their property since January 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not take timely and effective actions to investigate the resident’s reports of persistent mould affecting multiple rooms in their property. It arranged multiple surveys and mould washes, but failed to identify and address the underlying cause of the problem.
The landlord’s complaint responses were broadly in line with prescribed timescales. It accepted service failings and sought to put things right. However, it failed to resolve matters following its stage 2 response.

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 the person with overall responsibility for dealing with damp and mould issues. 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 18 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,800 made up as follows: £1,700 for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. £100 for its complaint handling failures. 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 18 June 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is 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. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 18 June 2026
4	Inspection order (post-works) The landlord must arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect and produce a written report 6-9 months post-completion of the works, scheduled to take place on 26 May 2026, in respect of damp and mould in the property. The surveyor’s report must clearly set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. Whether the works undertaken were effective in resolving the damp and mould issues in the property. The most likely cause of any ongoing damp and mould issues affecting the property. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issues identified, together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full schedule of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the works. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. By the due date, the landlord must submit to us evidence that it has either scheduled an appointment in accordance with this order or otherwise its commitment to the resident to schedule such an appointment in due course.	No later than 18 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 January 2024	In response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, a survey was carried out and found mould affecting the living room, both bedrooms, and the bathroom. The surveyor identified condensation, a lack of ventilation and defective windows as the likely causes and recommended various works to address the problem.
2 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that mould had returned less than 3 weeks after the mould treatment was carried out. They reported having “awful condensation on every window, water runs down the walls constantly”, and mould was affecting furniture, upholstery, clothes and the carpet. They said contractors had told them that “the only solution was for us to have new windows” and they insisted the problem be fixed rather than just cleaning it when it returned.
19 March 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response stated a survey had been arranged for 19 March 2024 to assess the extent of the problem and identify works to address the mould with a view to offering a permanent solution. It had also instructed its contractors to install a heat recovery unit and extractor fan in the property “to enhance the airflow… [and] minimise the opportunity of mould returning”. It apologised and offered £20 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response.
25 January 2025	The resident told the landlord the mould problem had reoccurred and was “worse than ever”, saying even the extractor fan fitted last year had mould on it. They said they were regularly cleaning the walls and replacing furniture and clothes that were “covered in black mould”, costing them “thousands of pounds”. They said they were now sleeping downstairs as they felt their bedroom was “too unsafe to sleep in”, and their daughter was “constantly feeling sick which could also be related”.
24 February 2025	The stage 2 response acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident’s family as a result of the persistent mould issue, despite the landlord’s interventions. It said it had arranged an inspection of the property on 28 February 2025 to “determine the underlying causes of the excessive mould growth and condensation and identify the necessary steps to address the issue effectively”. It apologised that the resident’s concerns were not adequately addressed in its previous response and offered compensation totalling £400 in recognition of the complaint and its impact.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the landlord’s interventions have been ineffective in resolving the “awful mould” in their property. They expressed concern that this could make one of them very unwell and they would like to be moved “as it is now the only way for us to have a safe place to live”. They said they were also struggling “to keep up with the constant costs of replacing furnishings, furniture and clothing”.
20 March 2026	The landlord wrote to the resident following a review of the complaint. It accepted it had fallen below the standards it expected to provide and apologised to the resident that the damp and mould issues still had not been resolved. It had arranged a joint inspection by a repairs surveyor and damp and mould surveyor on 8 April 2026 to identify the measures they would take to resolve matters. It also apologised for not tracking remedial works to ensure resolution of the complaint, and it offered a further £850 in recognition of the continuing impact of its failings.
12 May 2026	The resident told us they feel ignored by the landlord. They said it is stressful sleeping with mould present in their bedrooms and throughout the property, having to chase the landlord, and accommodating contractor attendances knowing the issue will reoccur in 4-6 weeks. They said contractors are “just wiping away the problem, not fixing it” and they have been “going around in circles for years”.

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

What we did not investigate

We note that, in a number of emails to the landlord, the resident expressed concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on their health and that of their children. 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s repairs policy, damp and mould policy, and repairs charter are all dated September 2024, which post-dates the resident’s earlier damp and mould reports. These provide that it will:
1. Adopt a proactive, ‘zero tolerance’ approach to damp and mould and target an urgent resolution where it is found.
2. Identify and tackle the underlying causes of damp and mould, including building deficiencies, inadequate ventilation and condensation.
3. Arrange a visit to diagnose and book any treatment within 3 working days of receiving a damp and mould report, subject to residents’ availability.
4. Carry out a mould wash treatment within 10 working days of the inspection.
5. Ensure the case is dealt with within 20 working days or sooner if it is an emergency.
6. Complete follow on decorations within 40 working days of the mould wash.
7. Post inspect all damp and mould cases within 3 months of the mould wash.
Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. In this case, there are gaps in the evidence.
While the landlord duly arranged a mould wash on 12 February 2024, it seems to have overlooked the surveyor’s report and recommendations of 10 January 2024. For instance, it did not install a mechanical extractor fan in the bathroom at the time, although this appears to have been done subsequently (it is unclear when). Further, it did not undertake works to fix the defective windows. Similar issues were identified in the report from the most recent joint inspection on 8 April 2026, 27 months later. That it took no action to resolve the defective windows for over 2 years is unacceptable. This is an excessive delay and has resulted in a prolonged period of avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and their household.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 11 February, 2 and 11 March 2024 chasing follow on works. This was unsatisfactory. Thereafter, a further survey was carried out on 19 March 2024, following which the landlord installed a ventilation unit in the resident’s hallway and an extractor fan in the kitchen on 10 May 2024.
The evidence shows the landlord arranged several surveys and mould washes in response to the resident’s repeated reports and complaints about damp and mould. However, it failed to monitor the outcome of those surveys and did not effectively manage the recommended works. It focused on attending to regular mould washes instead of investigating and remediating the root cause of the problem, which was contrary to its damp and mould policy. Therefore, it failed to take timely and reasonable actions. This was the key failing in its handling of the residents damp and mould issues. Further, it did not conduct follow-up inspections to ensure the mould treatments had been effective in resolving the issue.
There are no entries in the landlord’s repairs log for 2025. We note the resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2025 seeking confirmation of the appointment that day, but there is no evidence it replied. Therefore, we cannot ascertain if a further survey took place, as per the landlord’s stage 2 response. It is also unclear if it undertook any further investigation in response to the resident’s report of 27 June 2025. In all the circumstances, despite accepting failings in its handling of the resident’s reports relating to damp and mould, we have concluded that it failed to follow through on the commitments in its stage 2 response.
It is positive that the landlord sought to put things right by way of the compensation it offered in its stage 2 response dated 24 February 2025 and its subsequent review of the complaint on 20 March 2026. While the review reflects a concerted effort to try to put things right, it remains the case that the damp and mould issues are ongoing. Had the landlord not taken the action it did, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
At stage 2, the landlord offered £350 for the delay and resulting impact, which was not proportionate. The resident had clearly suffered a loss of enjoyment of their property in the previous 12 months since the initial report in January 2024. We have awarded a further £500 compensation for events up to and including the landlord’s stage 2 response, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience up to that point.
We acknowledge the landlord’s subsequent review of the complaint, which was over 12 months after its stage 2 response and after the resident came to us. We note it offered an additional £850 in respect of its failure to monitor works after the stage 2 response and the continuing impact. This was a reasonable level of compensation for the events that occurred after the conclusion of the complaints procedure.
We understand the recommended works are due to take place on 26 May 2026. As the resident has previously stated that the damp and mould issues in the property are worse during the colder months, we have ordered the landlord to schedule a follow up inspection 6-9 months after this date.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policies, relevant at the time of each of the resident’s complaints, were broadly consistent with the timescales prescribed in our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Generally, these stated it would:
1. Acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within 2 working days of receipt. (The Code provides for 5 working days.)
2. Provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
3. Acknowledge the stage 2 escalation within 5 working days of receipt.
4. Provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
Against these timescales, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same working day it received this.
2. Issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after its acknowledgement.
3. Acknowledged the stage 2 escalation 11 working days after receipt.
4. Provided its stage 2 response within 11 working days of its acknowledgement.
While the stage 1 response and stage 2 acknowledgement were outside the prescribed timescales, the overall time it took the landlord to deal with the complaint at each stage was within the total time in which we would expect it to respond. Therefore, while not ideal, the delays had a minimal impact in its handling of the complaint. We note it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 response, and its compensation offer of £20 was proportionate to the relatively short-lived inconvenience caused to the resident.
The stage 1 response failed to answer all aspects of the residents complaint. For example, the landlord did not address their concerns about the damage to their personal possessions or the surveyor’s comment that “the only solution was for us to have new windows”. Furthermore, it omitted its lack of action to address the works recommended by the surveyor on 10 January 2024, which was shared with the complaints team on 8 March 2024. This was not consistent with our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes).
That said, the stage 2 response was a better reflection of our dispute resolution principles insofar as it addressed the concerns raised by the resident. We note it advised they could submit a claim to its insurer if they felt it had acted in a way that was negligent or breached its duty of care leading to injury, damage or loss. However, contrary to its compensation policy, it did not consider the resident’s point that they felt their bedroom was “too unsafe to sleep in” owing to the severity of the mould.
Each of the landlord’s complaint responses included a further survey, which did not meaningfully progress matters for the resident. Each time, it failed to monitor the recommended works arising from those surveys, including after the stage 2 response. Consequently, it failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving matters. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find service failure.
We note the stage 2 response awarded £50 for its complaint handling failures, which was proportionate for its shortcomings up to that point. However, in line with our compensation guidance, we have awarded an additional £50 in recognition of the further inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its failures thereafter.

Learning

The landlord has not shown it took learning from the complaint and what it will do to prevent such issues from happening again.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There are gaps in the repair records so it is unclear if and when certain events took place.

Communication

The landlord’s communications with the resident were inadequate as it occasionally failed to respond to their emails.