London Borough of Barnet (202432330)

Decision
Case ID	202432330
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barnet
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	22 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a flat in a purpose built block. She is elderly and asthmatic.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks into the property.
2. Damp and mould.
3. A faulty boiler.
4. ASB in communal areas.
5. Pest infestation.
The complaint is also about:
1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled:
  1. The resident’s reports of leaks into the property.
  2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. The resident’s reports of pest infestation.
  4. The complaint.
2. There was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler.
3. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB in communal areas.
4. The resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled her request to be rehoused is not within our jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

Leaks.

The landlord failed to take suitable action to investigate and address the resident’s reports of leaks in the property. It also failed to keep the resident suitably updated about the progress of the major works programme it said was intended to address the leaks throughout the entire block.

Damp and mould.

The landlord failed to take appropriate action to investigate and address the resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property from December 2023 to late November 2024. It acted unreasonably by putting all damp and mould works on hold throughout 2024 pending the completion of a major works programme. It should have taken steps in the meantime to try and minimise any damp and mould in the property to mitigate the impact of this on the resident.

Faulty boiler.

The landlord has already offered suitable redress for its delays in repairing the resident’s boiler in January 2024. However, it failed to follow through on a January 2025 commitment to inspect the boiler following the resident’s report of new issues in December 2024.

ASB in communal areas.

The landlord acted appropriately by offering the resident advice and inviting her to provide further information about her allegations to help it investigate further.

Pest infestation.

The landlord failed to take further action to investigate and address the resident’s reports of an ant infestation from 13 September 2024 onwards despite commitments it made to do so during the complaints process.

Rehousing request.

The resident did not escalated these concerns to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. We do not investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure. Therefore, this complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Complaint handling.

The landlord delayed unreasonably in providing several complaint responses. It also failed to escalate complaints on 2 occasions.

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 18 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1150, this is made up of: £300 for distress caused by omissions in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks. £400 for distress caused by omissions in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. £300 for distress caused by omissions in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation. £150 for distress caused by its complaint handling omissions. The landlord is to evidence that it has paid the resident the £164 it offered as redress for delays in handling her concerns about the faulty boiler. If it has not paid this, it is to do so and evidence this. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 18 November 2025.
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 entire property for leaks, damp and mould, and ant infestation. The surveyor must also produce a written report with photographs. Inspects the boiler. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. Whether the boiler is functioning correctly. The most likely cause of any ant infestation, leaks and/or damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue(s) together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue(s) (if the landlord is responsible). 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 18 November 2025.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 April 2023	The resident complained about a leak from the property above hers into kitchen, bathroom, and living room.
11 May 2023	The landlord raised works to inspect damage to the ceiling caused by the leak and issued a stage 1 complaint response. It explained that it: Should have sent an electrician to attend the property on 20 April 2023 when the resident reported the leak. Had raised works to inspect the electrics and the ceiling. Would provide decorating vouchers for the bathroom, and for the kitchen ceiling following the inspection.
Between 4 December 2023 and 14 December 2023	The resident complained about an ongoing leak, resulting damp and mould, and asked to be moved.
11 January 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s concerns about a leak and damp and mould. It explained that: It completed works on 5 January 2024. The damp and mould was related to wider “leaking issues in [her] block” which needed resolving. Its major works team was responsible for addressing these issues block-wide, and would contact the resident “in due course”.
12 January 2024	The resident explained she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She complained there had been no progress in repairing the leak, and that she was without heating or hot water. She asked the landlord to compensate her for missed appointments and the costs of running a “small electric heater”.
6 February 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response about the boiler issues. It summarised the actions it had taken to fix this. It acknowledged: A missed appointment on 25 January 2024. Failure to raise works promptly. To address this it offered the resident: £44 for the 22 days she was without heating and hot water. £110 reimbursement for the cost of running electric heaters. £10 for the missed appointment.
13 April 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She complained about missed appointments, incomplete works, delays in repairing a leak into her property, and the removal of an asbestos board.
27 July 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had failed to: Repair the damage caused by the leak once it stopped. Replace the asbestos board it removed in the bathroom.
13 September 2024	The resident complained about an ant infestation. She explained the treatment applied on this date and previously had not worked. She also noted that the hole in the bathroom was a likely access point.
17 September 2024	The resident complained about how the landlord had handled her reports of leaks into her property, damp and mould in both bedrooms, constant water issues, heating and water issues, and ASB in communal areas. She also asked to be rehoused.
1 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response for the resident’s complaint about ant infestation. It applied an anti-ant treatment on 13 September 2024, and the visiting contractor did not make any further recommendations. However, it had passed her outstanding concerns onto the pest control team who would be in touch. It had scheduled works to renew a missing pipe in the bathroom on 17 October 2024. However, the resident advised it on 19 September 2024 that these works had already been completed, and so it cancelled the upcoming appointment. The landlord also reiterated its position that all damp and mould works were on hold until it completed the outstanding “major work”.
23 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response regarding the resident’s request to be rehoused. It explained that it had offered her 3 1-bedroom properties since August 2024 which she had declined. On this basis it found it had acted appropriately.
28 November 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response addressing the resident’s 24 October 2024 complaint. It explained it: Had recently attended and rectified some of these issues, and was scheduled to address outstanding works on 2 December 2024. Would address the complaint points following the completion of these works.
3 December 2024	The resident submitted a stage 2 escalation request. She complained that: A mould wash was insufficient to address the damp and mould in the bedroom. There was condensation on most windows. The leak remained constant from the flat above hers. The works completed in the 2nd bedroom and bathroom had not been successful. The boiler was “constantly breaking.” A draft was coming through the replaced panel in the bathroom. Rough sleepers were urinating and using drugs in communal areas.
16 January 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It addressed her complaints about damp and mould, ant infestation, ASB, and boiler issues. The landlord explained that it: Re: damp and mould Repaired an old leak and water damage to the panel in the bathroom and installed isolation valves to the cold and mains water feeds in September 2024. Identified localised mould around a window in one of the bedrooms on 3 December 2024. Was repeatedly denied access to the property in December 2024 to complete mould washes and install a dehumidifier. Had contacted the resident since and scheduled a mould wash and installation of a dehumidifier on 22 January 2025. Re: ant infestation Acknowledged issues with ant infestation in the block. Would raise further works to address this. Re: ASB in communal areas Had not received any reports of rough sleeping in the chute rooms since the “closure order” in July 2024. Installed a new door entry system to prevent rough sleepers accessing the building. Had asked its rough sleeper team to carry out fresh visits to reach out to anyone found in the building. Re: boiler issues Completed repairs on the boiler on 29 January 2024. Had not received any further reports about issues with this. Had raised a further inspection to address this.
11 September 2025	The resident emailed the Ombudsman and advised that all the issues addressed in the landlord’s January 2025 response remained outstanding. To resolve her complaint, she would like to be rehoused.

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	How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of leaks.
Finding	Maladministration

The first evidence of reports of a leak by the resident is via her stage 1 complaint on 22 April 2023. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 May 2023 it refers to repairs it completed throughout April 2023.
From 22 April 2023 until the landlord’s final response on 16 January 2025 the only documented action the landlord took to diagnose the cause of leaks was on 23 January 2024 when it inspected the washing machine in the property above and found no issues. We consider this lack of action was unreasonable, especially given the resident continued to report persistent leaks following the 23 January 2024 visit.
We note the landlord’s position as set out in its 11 January 2024 complaint response that there were issues with leaks throughout the entire block, and that it intended to address these via a schedule of major works. However, there are no records related to these works to indicate their progress or whether the landlord has commenced them at all.
In the absence of this evidence, we are not persuaded that the landlord suitably investigated the resident’s reports of leaks into her property during this period, or that it acted appropriately to progress the major works programme. We also consider this likely caused the resident distress.
Furthermore, we do not consider that the landlord kept the resident suitably updated about this programme of major works. For instance, in its complaint responses of 11 January 2024 and 16 January 2025 it explains that it intends to address the leaks throughout the entire block. However, in both responses it failed to offer any timescales for this or explain what specific works it intended to complete.
While we accept that major works can often take substantial time due to the complexity and resources involved, we would expect landlords to at least have a record of works they intend to complete with rough timescales. We would also expect them to communicate this information with affected residents. We consider the landlord’s failure to do so here likely compounded the resident’s distress.
We have considered that the resident incurred inconvenience in chasing the landlord to inspect and resolve described leaks from 22 April 2023 until 16 January 2025. For instance, she emailed the landlord on 11 separate occasions throughout this period asking it to address leaks. We have also considered how the landlord failed throughout the entire period to provide the resident with meaningful updates about the pending major works, and how this likely compounded her distress.
However, we are unable to take a robust view on the frequency or severity of these leaks given the resident does not elaborate on this in her emails to the landlord. There is also no objective evidence available to help us reach a view on this. We also note that the leaks appear to have stopped at several stages throughout the period. For instance, in an email to the landlord on 27 July 2024 the resident complains about delays with decorative works “after the leak was stopped.”

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s policy on damp and mould sets out that it will inspect properties within 10 days of a report. During this inspection it will diagnose the type of damp, mould, or condensation present. It will then raise works to address it and complete these within set timeframes depending on the severity of the issue and the associated risk.
The landlord also had a duty under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to ensure that it provided the resident with a home free from hazards. The HHSRS regards damp and mould as potential category 1 hazards.
The resident first reported damp and mould in both bedrooms on 1 December 2023. She also reported that the windows throughout the property were regularly covered in condensation. Despite this, the landlord did not complete an inspection of the property until 2 May 2024. This far exceeded the timelines set out in its policy. In its stage 1 response of 11 January 2024 it justified this lack of action by explaining that all damp and mould works were “on hold” until its contractor completed the major works programme across the entire block.
This was unsympathetic and unreasonable, especially given the resident had explained that she felt that her asthma was being exacerbated by mould. In keeping with our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (2021) we expect landlords to take a “zero-tolerance” approach to damp and mould.
This means the landlord should have taken proactive steps to manage and treat existing damp, mould and condensation while the major works intended to address the underlying causes were pending. While we note the resident did not allow access for the original inspection scheduled on 15 April 2024, the landlord still delayed unreasonably up until this point in progressing an inspection.
We can see the landlord raised a series of works following the 2 May 2024 inspection after it identified damp and mould in one of the bedrooms, and moisture in the kitchen and bathroom. These included renewing the fans in the kitchen and bathroom, stripping the wallpaper in one of the bedrooms, and mould treating both bedrooms.
On 13 May 2024 the resident advised the landlord it could not proceed with the bedroom works because she was unable to move the furniture within these rooms due to her condition. There is no indication the landlord replied to this email or explored how it could work around this.
Following this there is no evidence the landlord took any action to progress these works. It then raised the following works on 5 July 2024:
1. Reglaze windows.
2. Renew bathroom fan.
3. Mould wash affected walls and ceiling.
It then took no action to progress these works, or those previously raised until 2 December 2024. In a complaint response on 12 August 2024, and emails throughout October and November 2024, it explained that all these works were on hold until the major works were complete.
This position was unreasonable and does not justify its lack of action. While we note that the resident advised the landlord on 22 November 2024 that she could not allow access until 2 December 2024, this does not justify the lack of action from December 2023 up until this point. We note that by 22 November 2024 the resident had waited for almost 12 months for the landlord to take action to resolve the issue.
In its final response on 16 January 2025 the landlord advised that the resident had not allowed access on 2 December 2025. It explained it had inspected the property on 3 December 2024 and “identified localised mould around the external windows in one room.” It also explained that the resident had not responded to its attempts to complete a mould wash and install a dehumidifier on 9 and 11 December 2024. This is all corroborated by the repair records.
We also note the landlord acted positively by agreeing to install a dehumidifier and complete a mould wash on 22 January 2025. Therefore, we consider the landlord began taking appropriate steps to address the damp and mould from 2 December 2024 onwards, and that it may have done so slightly sooner had the resident not postponed the works on 22 November 2024. In summary then, the landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 3 December 2023 to late November 2024.
We have considered how this distress was likely greater than it would have been for someone else in her circumstances who was not impacted by her vulnerabilities. However, we have also considered that the 2 May 2024 and 3 December 2024 inspections did not reveal extensive or severe mould throughout the property.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of an ant infestation.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s pest control policy sets out that tenants are responsible for taking measures to prevent and control infestations of “garden ants.”
On 28 August and 13 September 2024 the landlord attended the property and treated areas of the bathroom with an anti-ant gel to control the “baby ants” identified. The repair records also note the ants were accessing the property via pipes which had been exposed due to a water leak. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted appropriately by assuming responsibility for the issue given the infestation had apparently resulted from actions it took related to previous repairs for which it was responsible.
The resident complained on 13 September 2024 that the landlord had failed to successfully destroy the ant population in the property. However, following this there is no evidence the landlord took any further action in response. In its stage 1 response on 1 October 2024 it advised that it would not uphold her complaint because its contractor did not note any further recommendations following the 13 September 2024 visit. Given the resident reported the issue was ongoing after this contractor had left, we do not consider this position was reasonable.
The landlord also committed to “follow up on this” at stage 1, and to inspect and treat the property in its stage 2 response of 16 January 2025. There is no evidence it acted to progress either of these commitments at any stage. We consider this likely caused the resident distress.
We have concluded that the landlord’s repeatedly failed at both complaint stages to follow up on commitments it made to investigate the issue further, and this likely caused the resident some distress. We have also considered that the resident incurred some inconvenience in raising the issue on several occasions.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that:
1. It will investigate ASB reports as soon as possible, and will prioritise serious incidents.
2. Following a report of ASB, an initial triage assessment, which includes an initial vulnerability assessment, will be completed.
3. At the point of contact, an assessment will be carried out to determine if the incident is a ‘low’ or ‘high’ risk.
4. Isolated incidents that are not specifically targeted, where the person reporting ASB is not vulnerable and the impact is low, will usually be classified as ‘low’ risk. These may include noise nuisance and non-violent crimes, including nuisance-related incidents late at night.
5. The landlord will not commit large amounts of resources to investigating such incidents, and will provide advice, signposting, and leaflets.
The resident first reported that rough sleepers were using drugs and urinating in communal areas on 3 December 2024. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response on 16 January 2025. It explained that its rough sleeper team patrolled regularly to prevent instances like the resident described. It noted that it had not received any reports of rough sleeping in the building since July 2024. However, it explained it would ask its rough sleeper team to carry out fresh visits. To help it investigate further, it asked the resident to clarify where she had seen them in the building, and if she was able to describe the alleged perpetrator’s appearances. The resident did not follow up on this.
We note the landlord did not complete a triage or vulnerability assessment following the resident’s report. This was not in line with its ASB policy. However, it acted appropriately by offering her some advice about the kinds of things it could do to address her concerns once she had provided further information. It did not take any further action following the stage 2 response, however, this was reasonable given the resident did not provide the further information it needed to escalate its approach.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will address emergency repairs, defined as those required to address total loss of services, within 24 hours.
The records show the resident first reported heating and hot water loss on 12 January 2024. In its stage 1 response the landlord notes she did so on 8 January 2024, and that it unsuccessfully attempted to access the property on 10 January 2024. There is no evidence of either event. Given she described a total loss of services, the landlord was obligated to address this as an emergency repair within 24 hours. However, it failed to do so.
We can see that it attended the property on 15 January 2024 and was unable to fix the boiler. It then attended 3 days later and diagnosed a faulty part and electrical issues. We note it acted positively here by leaving the resident with 2 electric heaters to mitigate the loss of heating. However, it then took a further 11 days to fully address each fault and restore functionality. It also missed a scheduled appointment on 25 January 2024. Therefore, it failed to address the boiler repairs as per its policy.
In its stage 1 response of 6 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged these omissions, apologised for them, and offered the resident £164 in compensation. This was comprised of £44 for amenity loss for 22 days, and £110 for the cost of running electric heaters at £5 per day for 22 days. It also offered her £10 for the missed appointment.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that, for total loss of heating after 24 hours, it will pay compensation of 10% of the weekly rent charge for the period in question when it has not provided a reasonable substitute. The resident was without heating from 13 January until 18 January 2024 when the landlord supplied electric heaters. 10% of the weekly rent charge for this period is around £10.
Its policy also sets out that it will pay 10% of the weekly rent charge for total loss of hot water when it has not offered a reasonable substitute. The resident was entirely without hot water entirely from 12 January until 29 January 2024. 10% of the weekly rent charge for this period was around £35.
Therefore, the landlord offered compensation in excess of the kind of sum directed by its policy. It also acted appropriately by offering a further £10 for the missed appointment as this also matches its compensation guidance. For this reason, we consider the landlord has already done enough to put right its omissions during this period.
As part of a stage 2 escalation request on 3 December 2024 the resident then raised new concerns that her boiler was “constantly breaking.” The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response on 16 January 2025. It advised that it had successfully fixed the boiler on 29 January 2024, and that the resident had not raised any further concerns since this date. However, it advised the resident that it would inspect the boiler and contact her shortly to arrange an appointment.
We cannot see any evidence that the resident raised further concerns about her boiler following the 29 January 2024 repair until the stage 2 escalation. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted proportionately by raising a new inspection in response to this.
However, there is no evidence in the repairs records to indicate the landlord followed through on this inspection after its final response, and the resident advised the Ombudsman on 11 September 2025 that the boiler remains “not fit for use”. Therefore, we are not persuaded that it acted suitably to progress this inspection as per its stage 2 commitment. For this reason, we will order the landlord to inspect the boiler for issues, and raise works to address any faults it may identify.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and address them within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within the same timescales, and address these within 20 working days. When it is unable to do so, it will write to the resident and provide updated timescales. It also sets out that it defines stage 2 escalation requests as expressions of dissatisfaction with a stage 1 complaint response.
On 11 December 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint about a leak and damp and mould. The landlord was 5 working days late in acknowledging this on 27 December 2023. It then addressed it 5 working days late on 11 January 2024.
The resident escalated this complaint on 12 January 2024 and explained she did not consider the landlord had taken any action to address the leak or mould. She also included concerns about her boiler in this email. The landlord appropriately raised a new complaint to address the boiler concerns as this was not a part of the stage 1 complaint. However, it failed to raise a stage 2 complaint to address her outstanding concerns about the leak and damp and mould.
The landlord was 7 working days late in issuing a stage 1 response about the boiler on 6 February 2024. On 13 April 2024 the resident raised another stage 2 escalation request, which included concerns about the leak. The landlord failed to raise a stage 2 complaint to address this.
On 17 September 2024 the resident complained about leaks, damp and mould, ant infestation, heating issues, ASB in communal areas, and her request to be rehoused. The landlord addressed her complaint about ant infestation and damp and mould within its timescales via a stage 1 response on 1 October 2024. It addressed her complaint about her request to be rehoused 15 working days late on 23 October 2024.
The resident raised a further complaint on 24 October 2024 about damp and mould and leaks. The landlord was 10 working days late in acknowledging this on 14 November 2024. It issued a stage 1 complaint response on 28 November 2024 which only addressed her concerns about leaks and damp and mould. This was also 15 working days late.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 December 2024 and elaborated on her concerns about damp and mould, leaks, boiler issues, an ant infestation, and ASB in communal areas. The landlord was 9 working days late in addressing this via a stage 2 response on 16 January 2025.
In summary then, from December 2023 until January 2025 the landlord delayed for a cumulative total of 47 working days across all the relevant complaints. It also failed on 2 occasions to raise stage 2 complaints as per its complaints policy.
We have considered how the landlord’s omissions were likely confusing for the resident, and that she likely incurred inconvenience in having to raise issues multiple times and chase responses. The landlord has also not acknowledged any of these omissions.
However, we have balanced this against the volume of correspondence the resident sent the landlord throughout this period, and noted that this likely made it more difficult to split and address each complaint precisely. We also note a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the impact of these complaint handling omissions was anything beyond minor frustration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was poor throughout the entire period in question. Most notable is the absence of any records related to the major works programme intended to address the leaks throughout the entire block. The landlord is encouraged to reflect on what it can do to improve its record keeping bearing in mind the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.