London Borough of Barnet (202516069)

Background

1. The resident reported concerns about persistent dampness in her kitchen, bathroom and hallway. She felt the landlord’s attempts to apply temporary fixes were allowing the issues to return and causing damage to her walls. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to these issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and the associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and the associated repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp, mould and the associated repairs

5. The landlord investigated and resolved a leak; however, it failed to complete the follow on works to repair the walls which it made a commitment to do at stage 2.

Landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 response and did not use the complaints process effectively to put things right.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. We have investigated the issues from July 2022 onwards reviewed in the landlord’s responses, including any actions it committed to as part of its final response.
8. The landlord has repair obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the property in repair. Its damp and mould policy states it will inspect for dampness in 10 working days of being reported by the resident.
9. The landlord raised a work order to investigate reports of damp and mould after a previous leak on 6 July 2022. According to the landlord’s records it completed this repair and gave the resident a decorating allowance. There is no information about when the resident raised the repairs or what work it did, so it is not possible to establish if it responded to the reports in a timely manner. This should reasonably have been recorded so that it had an accurate audit trail of the reports and action it took in response.
10. The landlord raised another work order on 31 August 2022 to investigate a new strain of dampness in the hallway, bathroom and kitchen walls. It said it would attend on 21 September 2022. This was rebooked for 28 October 2022. The reason for this is not recorded. However, on 28 October 2022, the landlord’s operative was stuck in traffic, so it rescheduled the appointment to 8 November 2022. It took the landlord 48 days to attend to reports of damp. This was not in accordance with its damp and mould policy.
11. The landlord established that a plumber needed to attend to trace and rectify the leak, renew the bath panel and replace the rubber seal on the shower. The landlord organised an appointment to do this on 18 November 2022, but at the resident’s request this was changed to 20 December 2022. It completed this work on 13 February 2023. Overall, it took the landlord 6 months to complete this work. We appreciate the resident asked to reschedule at least one appointment. However, the total time taken to complete the work was not proportionate to the complexity of the repair.
12. The resident raised a complaint on 24 October 2023. She was concerned about the condition of the kitchen cabinets and the state of the walls. She noted the root cause had been resolved but that the decorating vouchers provided were insufficient to cover the extent of the damage. She said the walls needed replastering, which the landlord had agreed to do but failed to do so. There are no details of what happened in response to these concerns. The landlord should have reasonably recorded what investigation and work it had done. In absence of evidence or an explanation in its complaint responses, we cannot conclude that it responded reasonably.
13. The resident raised her complaint on 23 October 2024, not only raising concerns about damp but that the walls were severely damaged. The landlord completed a damp inspection 14 days later on 12 November 2024. This was outside of its 10 day policy timescale. The landlord established there was a possible leak under the bath, and it would repair the walls after it resolved the leak. This was a reasonable and logical approach. What was not reasonable, was there was a 10 day delay in raising a work order for this. There is no evidence to suggest this delay was unavoidable.
14. The landlord attended on 6 December 2024 where it carried out a minor repair to the bath and advised the resident to replace the shower screen. It appropriately gave her a dehumidifier to dry out the saturated area, before it could do the remedial work. It collected the dehumidifier on 8 January 2025. We note there was a small delay over the Christmas period where the resident was not available for the landlord to collect the dehumidifier. However, there is no evidence that the landlord then arranged to repair the walls in a timely manner. This was a failing.
15. After the complaints process ended, the resident chased the landlord for follow on works in February 2025. This included the bath panels which had not been replaced and the wall repair. We note that the landlord tried to book an appointment to refix the bath panel and repair the walls on 27 February 2025. The resident refused this as she was concerned the framework under the bath had rotted. Understandably she said an operative advised her this should be fixed before replacing the bath panel. In response the landlord:
    1. Inspected the property on 21 March 2025. It noted the shower screen was not sealing the bath, mould needed cleaning, painting and skirting needed replacing.
    2. Visited the property on 16 April 2025 to establish the area under the bath needed drying out.
    3. Replaced the shower screen and supplied a dehumidifier on 12 May 2025. It collected the dehumidifier on 22 May 2025. As the area had dried out the resident chased the landlord in June 2025 for the outstanding work.
    4. Replaced the bath panel, skirting board and framework under the bath on 25 June 2025. Therefore, the only outstanding issue was the repair work to the walls.
    5. Tried to paint the walls in July 2025, but its operative advised they needed replastering first.
    6. Completed another damp inspection in November 2025 where it identified outstanding works including the wall repair. It assured the resident it would start this by 10 December 2025.
16. We understand from the resident, the landlord has not completed the follow on works to repair the walls. This represents a 12 month delay since it made an assurance to complete this at stage 2. This is excessively outside of its policy timescales. We appreciate that some of the delays were due to the area needing to dry out, however once that was done in May 2025, there was little progress until November 2025 when it repeated the inspection. The landlord missed an opportunity after the complaints process ended to demonstrate it was taking her concerns seriously. Instead, she has had to chase it for updates on the follow on works after it repaired the leak in December 2024.
17. We have made a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay £800 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident. This takes into about the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for a repair which has not been completed in a timely manner.
18. The resident contacted us on 30 December 2025 to state the issue of damp in her home was worsening. We believe this information could constitute a material change in respect of Awaab’s Law, which came into effect on 27 October 2025. A material change is a change in the original reported circumstances, such as a change in the hazard. We have seen the landlord’s findings of the damp and mould survey it did in November 2025. It said it identified a hazard that required action. However, since then the resident has informed us that the damp has gotten worse. We have notified the landlord that this could be a material change under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.  It will need to consider whether Awaab’s Law applies and assess if this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard.

19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
20. The landlord responded at stage 1 in accordance with its policy timescale of 10 working days. However, it took 40 working days to issue its stage 2 response after the resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2024. This was outside of the 25 day timeframe for acknowledging and responding to complaints at stage 2. We do however note that the landlord asked for an extension on 7 January 2025 for its delayed stage 2 response, which it should have done at an earlier stage.
21. The resident also raised concerns about the condition of her kitchen. The landlord did not provide a response to this in its complaint responses. We understand that it did update the resident about this separately which was appropriate.
22. Overall, the landlord failed to properly assess its handling of the complaint against the Code and its policy, had it done so it would have identified the above failings. As such it also missed an opportunity to put things right. We have made a finding of service failure and order it to pay £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an impact on the resident.

Learning

23. The landlord’s lack of effective management of the issues has resulted in lengthy delays in completing the repairs. During the complaints process it made assurances to do follow on works and has not completed these in a timely manner. It should consider reviewing its processes to make improvements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s record keeping was mostly appropriate. In the evidence provided to us, it did not record when the resident initially made her reports, it is not clear if it did or did not record this information. However, it should ensure this is being recorded.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been better as she had to chase it for updates on the follow up work required.