London Borough of Barnet (202442712)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442712

London Borough of Barnet

31 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident occupied her home, a 2-bedroom property, together with her husband and 4 children under a secure tenancy which began in 2011. There were no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident reported during the period of her complaint that her husband and children were asthmatic and had health issues.
The landlord had an obligation under sections 9a and 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to maintain the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, and that it is fit for habitation in relation to damp.
On 15 November 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in the property.On 13 January 2023 the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection and raised follow up works.
On 4 October 2023 the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. On 15 November 2022 she had reported that the situation in her property was “dire”. She felt her family was getting sick as a result.
2. Her husband and children were asthmatic and needed medication when at home.
3. The damp had stripped the soaked walls, damaged carpets, laminate flooring, skirting board and ruined an already damaged kitchen. There were silver fish insects on the saturated parts of the carpet and laminate flooring. The damp had spread further into the house and the strong smell of damp all around the house was unbearable. When it rained the house became even more saturated.
4. The only repair that had been completed was the external brickwork, to stop rainwater from entering the property. However every time it rained the walls got even more saturated. No internal works had been carried out. Contractors either did not turn up or cancelled on the day.
5. She had chased and waited in for appointments.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint as follows:
1. It set out events leadings to delays from November 2022 to the date of its letter.
2. It summarised that the resident had incurred delays, firstly, as a result of the surveyor raising works with the wrong contractor and secondly, the subsequent contractors not attending appointments and not finishing off the repairs. It had changed contractors.
3. A contractor had completed external works on 3 July 2023.
4. The repairs had been approved and were booked for an appointment on 26 October 2023. (Those repairs appear to consist of repointing, hacking the internal walls, replacing the kitchen work top and overhauling the taps).
5. It would contact her on 27 October 2023 for an update.
6. It offered a damp and mould survey.
7. It apologised.
8. It offered £80 in compensation consisting of £30 for 3 missed appointments (£10 per missed appointment) and £50 for the delays.
The contractors did not attend on 26 October 2023. No works were carried out.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 1 December 2023.This identified rising damp in the kitchen and hall with humidity readings of 60 and damp readings of 99. It identified rising damp in the hallway and kitchen and recommended rectifying a leak in the kitchen/hallway.
On 18 and 19 January 2024 the resident telephoned the landlord to ask to escalate the complaint on the basis that:
1. The issues had not been resolved, despite the landlord’s assurances in its stage 1 response. She chased the landlord but there had been no response.
2. The landlord had not authorised the full job of a repair to a rear wall of the property. The contractors had withdrawn from the works.
On 20 February 2024 the landlord wrote with its stage 2 response as follows:
1. It upheld her complaint. It apologised that the repair works had not taken place.
2. It had appointed new sub-contractors. It would then check the proposed works had been addressed
3. It increased the offer of £80 compensation by £50 to £130. It apologised. It was introducing new procedures that would improve its service.
The resident informed us on 23 July 2025 that the landlord had not carried out any works until an inspection of 17 February 2025.
On 17 February 2025 a damp and mould specialist carried out a damp and mould inspection. The inspection report of 3 March 2025 identified as follows:
1. The kitchen and hallway walls were very soft, this was either salt contamination caused by moisture migration or an incorrect specification used at damp proofing stage.
2. The defects identified required “immediate” attention. They included:
  1. Cold bridging to the exterior.
  2. Mould.
  3. Possible leak.
  4. “Roof” to the interior.
3. Damp readings were 34-99% in places.
4. It confirmed:
  1. Mould in the hallway and stairs, a bedroom and bathroom.
  2. Missing pointing.
5. It recommended:
  1. The previous contractors “correct” the salt contaminated walls in the hallway and kitchen.
  2. A mould wash to ceilings
  3. Contacting the neighbouring property to rule out any leaks.
The resident chased the landlord on 4 and 11 April 2025, explaining the position regarding the inspection, and referring to “several” calls she had made. The landlord stated it would respond within 10 working days.
The resident has informed us that the next steps the landlord took were as follows:
1. On 21 July 2025, a contractor attended to paint over the damp and mould and take photographs in order to “complete the job”. She queried this as the walls were damp.
2. On 23 July 2025, the contractor told her that it had reported to the landlord it could not paint “saturated” walls. The landlord instructed it to do a mould wash then to paint parts of the hallway that they could and the landlord would carry out an inspection on 29 July 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We have considered events beyond the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaint process. This is where those events were directly linked to the resident’s complaints. The landlord stated as part of its resolution that it would check it had carried out the promised works. Carrying out the works was a central element of the resolution. We would expect the landlord to consider our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case putting things right would mean ensuring the promised works were carried out. We have therefore considered whether the landlord took appropriate action to put things right and to follow up the commitments in its final complaint response.
The resident has reported how the issues raised in this complaint had affected her family’s health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law who can consider medical evidence, legal concepts and make legally binding findings. However, we will consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

It was not disputed that there was a significant delay following the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property in November 2022. While there was an inspection on 13 January 2023, there was a further delay to works being carried out. The landlord reasonably acknowledged and explained this in its stage 1 response in October 2023. The response’s list of events reflected the landlord’s records. The landlord’s position at that time was that works were outstanding and would be arranged.
However works that the surveyor identified on 13 January 2023 were either delayed further or not carried out, and some not raised at all.
The works the landlord’s surveyor raised on 13 January 2023 with the outcomes were as follows:
1. “Urgent” repointing to the external brick wall to the rear and front of property, “especially” the rear wall allowing water ingress when it rained. The surveyor raised these works on 13 January 2023, the same day as the inspection.
  1. According to the parties, external works were carried out but not until 3 July 2023. We note that pointing of the external walls was re-raised on 7 February 2023 and on 4 October 2023 transferred to a different contractor. This was as per the stage 1 complaint response. We conclude that the pointing works were not completed in July 2023. While new contractors attended on 10 October 2023, no works were carried out that day.
  2. According to a damp and mould inspection report of 1 December 2023, the rear wall was still “saturated” causing damp ingress.
  3. On 19 January 2024 the resident reported that the full works had not been authorised to repair to the rear wall of the property. This was confirmed by the landlord’s records, according to which the costs were not approved until 12 February 2024.
  4. The resident told us on 23 January 2025 that repointing was done in March 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
  5. The February 2025 report stated that there was pointing missing. The resident also reported that the walls, in particular the kitchen wall, was still “saturated”.
  6. We conclude that while some repointing was carried out it appears that this was not to an effective or satisfactory standard, given the findings of the February 2025 inspection.
2. Hacking plaster back to the kitchen and hallway walls. The records show these works were not completed until March or April 2024.
Issues that were identified by the surveyor’s report January 2023 but were either raised later or not at all are as follows:
1. The front gutters, drains, and down pipes required clearing out. A job to clear the rainwater goods/gutters was not raised until 8 November 2023. The landlord’s records indicated these works were not carried out until 23 March 2024.
2. Possible breach to the damp proof course (“dpc”). The damp and mould inspection report of 1 December 2023 detected rising damp in the hallway. However, the landlord stated there were no follow-on works. On 24 May 2024, the landlord’s records noted that there was a lot of “rising water” on the back walls and in the hallway. The note stated that the damp proof membrane “could be causing an issue”. On 4 June 2024, a job was raised to test for a dpc. According to the notes, the resident reported on 5 August 2024 that the landlord had told her the damp course membrane had failed and she was chasing up the works. While the job was marked was completed on 3 July 2024, we cannot see any evidence of the outcome. According to an internal email of 6 January 2025, the salt contaminated walls was an indication of an issue with rising damp. It is not clear whether the dpc was properly investigated. We understand that the damp course was not repaired. While this was not a specific repair identified in the complaint responses, the landlord said it would resolve the damp and mould. The landlord failed to investigate the dpc when it was identified as a possible cause in January and December 2023 and was again throughout 2024. We will make an order in that regard.
3. No airbrick in the lounge. While this was noted in the January 2023 report, there was no evidence that the landlord considered this subsequently.
4. The January 2023 report recommended that a plumber investigate whether a leaking internal pipe could have been causing the damp in the lounge. The report of 1 December 2023 recommended locating a leak in the kitchen/hallways. No leaks were identified on 6 January 2024. According to an internal email of 24 May 2024, the landlord considered that it should investigate whether there were any waste or water pipes under the house. On 28 May 2024, a plumber checked the bathroom area and the landlord for “outside holes”. It is not clear if that was the same job as that considered on 24 May 2024. The landlord raised a job regarding a leak under the kitchen sink which was addressed on 6 December 2024. The evidence indicates that the landlord checked the property for pipe leaks. However, we will make a recommendation that the landlord confirms the position.
5. An inspection report dated 3 March 2025 of the inspection on 17 February 2025 recommended contacting the neighbouring property and ruling out any leaks. We appreciate there may be difficulties in that regard as the property is privately owned. The landlord could consider its legal position. We will make a recommendation in that regard.
6. Replace rotten kitchen work top around the sink and leaking taps. These works were not raised until 8 November 2023. Again, they were allocated to the initial contractors and rebooked. The works were not carried out until March or April 2024.
7. The kitchen extractor fan required overhauling. We did not see any evidence the landlord raised this job.
8. Further works were raised in November 2023, including replacing or repairing a radiator. We did not see evidence of a repair. We understand from the resident that the landlord replaced the radiator but only after a number of unsuccessful repairs were carried out, despite it leaking,
The January 2023 report noted that there were no visible signs of any issues with the roof. The roof was inspected according to an internal note of 24 May 2024 and again no issues were identified. However, we note the report of 3 March 2025 states that this was an “interior” building defect. There was no evidence of any further investigation. We will therefore make a recommendation in that regard.
The resident reported that contractors either cancelled appointments on the day they were due to attend or not attend at all. She reported that she and her husband had lost pay as a result. The landlord acknowledged 3 missed appointments in its stage 1 response. According to the landlord’s records, the first contractor had attended 4 times in 2023 but not carried out works. The records showed that the second contractor cancelled, rebooked and then did not attend without giving notice on 26 October 2023. The resident reported that she had waited in all day. The appointment was rebooked for 14 or 18 November 2023. The contractors did not attend and rebooked for 18 December 2023 when they attended without the right tools. The contractors then did not attend on the next appointment on 9 January 2024 without giving notice. It was after then that the contractors informed the resident the landlord had not authorised the full works. This was frustrating and inconvenient for the resident and meant further delays to the works.
We saw some evidence of the landlord chasing when a complaint response to the resident was due. It is unreasonable and inconsistent of the landlord to only chase repairs in response to a complaint. It was reasonable the landlord changed contractors on occasions, given the works were not being done. However, the landlord was reactive not proactive. The lack of progress demonstrated that the landlord was not monitoring the works or to any effect. It also showed poor organisation sending contractors before resolving the issue of costs. We also noted that the job references numbers changed for the same jobs. This was confusing for the resident when she was chasing works.
It was reasonable that the landlord carried out a number of investigations including into the roof and leaks, and commissioned investigations such as that of 17 February 2025. The evidence showed that the condition of the property improved at least for a period but it had not been resolved. However the landlord did not follow all the recommendations made or provide a reasonable explanation why not. Given that the issues were not resolved, and, according to the resident, she continued to chase, that was unreasonable.
A purpose of a complaint is to seek resolution. We would therefore expect the landlord to monitor that the resolution proposed was carried out. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 October 2023 as promised, found that the contractors did not attend but did not follow this up. The matter was allowed to drift again. The stage 2 response of 20 February 2024 stated that the landlord would check that the proposed works would be carried out. We did not see evidence that the landlord monitored the complaint to resolution or reviewed whether the works were carried out. The complaint response did not address the resident’s complaint that the fabric of the property, including the flooring, was damaged as a result of the damp. That was unreasonable. Its compensation policy refers residents to their insurance but will consider a claim where they believe the landlord is responsible for damage. We will make an order accordingly.
On 29 April 2024, the landlord said it intended to post-inspect the works carried out in March and April 2024. There is no evidence that it did so. On 17 July 2024, it was querying whether it could verify the works using photos, it is not clear what is in doubt. The report of 25 March 2025 appeared to suggest that the repointing works carried out were not satisfactory and there is no evidence that the landlord has addressed this. That is unreasonable.
The report of the February 2025 inspection referred to the property being overcrowded which may have been a factor contributing to its condition. The landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment (the “Assessment”) states that “if medical issues are discussed that related to damp and mould issues, they will be assessed by the landlord’s housing register’s medical team in order to discuss rehousing”. While the landlord suggested the resident seek to exchange properties, the resident has informed us that she has tried unsuccessfully to get a mutual exchange. In her view, it was due to the condition of her property.
There is no evidence that the landlord’s made a referral for an assessment of the resident’s housing needs. We recognise that, in accordance with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, rehousing would only occur in some cases and in accordance with the local authority’s allocation scheme. We also understand the challenges of the shortage of social housing. However, we cannot pre-empt the outcome of any enquiries. It would be good practice for the landlord to consider assistance with a move through its housing register. We will make an order that the landlord proactively explores with the resident rehousing the family, signposts her for any support and considers a management move, given the household is overcrowded, the condition of the property and the household health circumstances.
The damp and mould policy explains that damp may be due to a number of reasons, rising damp, penetrative damp, or condensation. The evidence showed that rising and penetrative damp were involved. The reference to overcrowding in the March 2025 report suggests that condensation may also be a factor. In those circumstances, there are a number of steps the landlord could consider. According to its damp and mould policy, this includes an anti-fungal mould wash, and consideration to the ventilation of the property to either overhaul, renew, or install extractors fans where required. The policy also states that the situation should be monitored for six weeks with a re-inspection booked by the surveyor to assess improvement. In certain cases, where appropriate, the landlord would consider the installation of positive input ventilation (PIV) systems, and thermo-boarding internal walls. Aside from a recommendation to overhaul the kitchen fan and, in the March 2025 report for a mould wash, we saw no evidence of the landlord considering those steps and will make an order to that effect.
The resident made a number of reports about the health of her household members, that they suffered respiratory issues and were affected by the condition of the property. The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy states that vulnerability “is generally defined as someone who is more likely than the ‘average’ person to suffer detriment or harm”. It further states that “staff are expected to take every opportunity to update our systems with information about tenants’ circumstances through their day-to-day service delivery.” It also states that it “may accelerate repairs or otherwise adjust our repairs service for people with particular health or vulnerability issues”. The Assessment states that during a survey, it should take into account vulnerabilities. It is generally accepted that people, particularly children, with respiratory issues are more at risk from damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord recognised or recorded these issues or took them into account. We will make an order that the landlord offers to record these issues in its central records and in particular so they are highlighted when considering the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
This investigation has identified a number of failings. The evidence showed that there were considerable delays in addressing the issues raised in November 2022. The jobs were raised to 3 sets of contractors. We are not satisfied that the landlord properly monitored and followed up the repairs or satisfied itself that they were done to a sufficient standard. We did not see evidence of follow up inspections 3 months after works or at all. The findings in this investigation did not reflect a “zero tolerance” to damp and mould” or ”monitoring of missed appointments and follow up actions” set out in the Assessment.
We have not seen the outcome of the stock condition inspection referred to in the Assessment or categorisation of damp and mould works based on HHSRS guidance (housing health and safety rating system). There was no evidence that the landlord cross referred to these when inspecting the property. Also, in accordance with the Assessment, the landlord was to send the resident a copy of the third-party specialist survey. We will make an order accordingly.
The resident has reported her concerns about her family’s health, the impact on the contents and possessions, that the property smelt badly, and was and is unsightly. We do not consider that £130 properly addressed the significant delays and impact on the resident or satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
This investigation has highlighted cumulative failings including missed opportunities, delays, failure to investigate and resolve all the issues. We are concerned that following our writing to the landlord to say we were now investigating the case and requesting what steps it had taken since the report in March 2025, it sent a contractor to paint over the mould and, on the contactor contacting the landlord, a mould wash, without addressing the underlying issues. Given the resulting impact of the lack of repairs on the resident and her family, we find severe maladministration.
We will make an order for further compensation to address the resident’s distress and inconvenience. We will take into account that the works were not completed until March/April 2024, the landlord did not follow up all the recommendations and that the issues, and therefore the complaint, have not been resolved.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should contact the resident and discuss recording her household circumstances on its central records and explain what she can expect as a result. This should be confirmed in writing to the resident with a copy to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1,450 in addition to the £130 offered by the landlord and consisting as follows:
  1. £1,200 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience arising from the presence of mould and damp in her property from November 2022 to July 2025. This represents approximately 10% of the resident’s rent averaged over the period having taken into account any interim improvements. We consider that using 10% of the rent as the basis for our calculation is fair to address the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
  2. £250 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should consider and either assess any claim by the resident for damage to the items she referred to in her complaint or refer her claim to its insurers, and in any event, and consider carrying out remedial works to rectify the damage the resident described in her email 4 October 2023.
4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the resident with the inspection reports of 1 December 2023 and 3 March 2025.
5. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should:
  1. Liaise with the local authority housing register’s team and offer or signpost the resident for support regarding a housing application and consider whether it can offer the resident a management move,.
6. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor and/or damp and mould specialist to:
  1. carry out the landlord’s form of HHSRS assessment.
  2. inspect the external walls and review the repointing to date.
  3. investigate the damp course with a view to repairing it and/or replacing the damp course membrane.
  4. investigate the lack of airbrick and consider whether it would be beneficial and/or possible to install one.
  5. check the extractor fans are effective and sufficient.
  6. consider any steps the landlord could take in ameliorating the damp and mould in the property as set out in its damp and mould policy.
  7. investigate any other causes for the damp and mould in the property.
7. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should provide a detailed report of the findings to the resident and the Ombudsman, provide a schedule of works with timescales.
8. The works should be carried out no later than within 12 weeks of this report and be monitored through to completion, post-inspected both on completion and with a 3-month review.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4, 6 and 12 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. Within 4 weeks, unless the issues are identified in the inspection following our order, the landlord should confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman:
  1. it has checked the property for leaks from waste and water pipes, with its findings, as recommended by its surveyor.
  2. the position regarding the roof as referred to in the report of 3 March 2025.
2. The landlord should ensure that it provides the residents with the relevant and updated job reference numbers.
3. The landlord should consider contacting the neighbouring property with a view to investigating whether there is a leak from their bathroom and its intentions regarding the recommendations in the report of 3 March 2025.
The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.