London Borough of Brent (202413027)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413027

London Borough of Brent

31 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damp and mould, and associated repairs.
2. A roof leak.
3. An update to her household details.
4. A request to install an additional light in the kitchen.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property has 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, one of which is a wet room. The resident lives with her husband, son, daughter in law, and granddaughter. The resident has several health conditions, including ones which affect her eyesight, respiratory system, and her mobility.
The resident is represented by her son, who also resides at the property. This report refers to “the resident”, though it may usually be referring to actions taken by the resident’s son on her behalf.
Following reports of damp and mould on an unknown date, the landlord surveyed the property on 20 August 2021. It identified several works including:
1. repairs to the bathroom floor
2. mould washes in the shower room
3. repairs to cracks in a bedroom ceiling
4. resealing the bath
On 7 July 2022 the resident requested the landlord update its records of who was living at the property. This is referred to in this report as “household details”. On 12 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to install a new kitchen light.
On 10 August 2022 the landlord attended to reseal the bath. On 26 October 2022 the landlord attended to ‘check for cracks and defects and carry out repairs’.
On 2 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. she had complained in December 2022 and not received a response
2. no works had been done following the surveyor’s visit in August 2021
3. she had been unable to use the wet room since August 2021
4. she had not received a response to her request to update her household details
5. she had not received a response to her request for the installation of a new kitchen light
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2023. It stated that:
1. it would attend on 12 July 2023 to complete ‘outstanding repairs’ to the bathroom
2. the installation of an additional kitchen light would not be considered a repair, but an improvement. It said it would pass this request to a relevant staff member to consider
3. it had updated its records on 11 July 2022, as requested by the resident
4. there had been ‘poor communication’ by the landlord. It added that it had ‘reminded all involved’ of its Customer Standards as a result
5. it was sorry for any distress or inconvenience caused
On 12 July 2023 it attended and completed:
1. repairs to the bedroom ceiling
2. repairs to or replacement of the flooring in the bathroom and shower room
3. works to seal the bath, sink and toilet
On 16 August 2023 the landlord inspected the completed repairs and said they were satisfied with the work. It identified further works which were needed, including:
1. replacing a ‘strip light’ in the kitchen
2. repair of cracks in the bedroom
3. a mould wash in the bathroom
4. replacing a bath panel and resealing the bath
5. inspecting (water ingress from) the roof above the living room
On 29 August 2023 a contractor inspected the roof. It confirmed that there was water ingress and sent the quote for the repairs to the landlord on 2 October 2023.
On 15 October 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that:
1. nobody had attended to complete repairs since the survey done in August 2021
2. she had respiratory conditions and a 1 year old granddaughter in the property. She was worried about the health impact of damp and mould
3. she had requested an extra light above the kitchen sink due to her eyesight
4. she had requested the details of who was living at the property be updated on the landlord’s ‘online system’
Repairs to the roof were completed on either 23 or 30 November 2023. On 30 November 2023 the landlord issued its final complaint response. It stated that it:
1. was sorry for delays in completing repairs, which had been due to poor communication between the landlord and its contractors
2. had updated the resident’s details as requested, but not confirmed this with the resident. It would now write to the resident confirming the changes
3. would assign a “repairs officer” who would contact the resident about the outstanding repairs within 1 week
4. offered the resident £650 compensation for ‘poor communication, inconvenience, and time and trouble’
On 4 April 2024 the landlord marked all outstanding repairs as ‘complete’. The resident contacted us for advice on 28 June 2024. The resident told us on 25 November 2024 that all repairs, except for the repair to address the roof leak, remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord and resident have conflicting accounts about the repairs which have been done since the time of the stage 2 complaint response. The description of these repairs which has been given to us by the resident, alongside the landlord’s own repair records, suggest these works were complex.
As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about its handling of these later works, we will not assess events beyond the date of the stage 2 complaint response of 30 November 2023. If the resident has concerns about events which took place after the stage 2 complaint response, these should be raised separately with the landlord.

Handling of reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs

In October 2021, we published our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould. It notes that damp and mould can be prejudicial to health. It notes that it is good practice to inspect and take appropriate actions, such as performing mould washes, promptly. The Spotlight report stresses the importance that investigations (into the root causes) are thorough.
The landlord’s Tenancy Guide sets out the timescales in which it will attend various types of repairs. It states that non urgent ‘priority 3’ repairs should be completed within 20 working days, whereas non-urgent ‘priority 4’ repairs should be completed within 60 working days. The Guide provides examples of repairs which imply that the priority level given to non-urgent repairs is based on the complexity of the repair required.
The landlord’s ‘Customer Standards’ set out how it is expected to communicate with residents. It details the need to “maintain regular contact and act in a timely manner to ensure expectations are met in a reasonable time scale. Where this is not possible residents should be informed of issues that are likely to impact on the resolution.”
The landlord identified the first round of works needed at the property on 20 August 2021. This included a mould wash, repairing cracks in the bedroom ceiling, replacement vinyl flooring in the bathroom and resealing the bath. It is unclear which level of priority these were given. These repairs should have been completed by approximately 12 November 2021 at the latest, in line with its published timescales. The evidence shows that these were completed on 12 July 2023, almost 2 years later. This was a significant failing.
The landlord identified further works on 16 August 2023. These should have been completed by 8 November 2023 at the latest. The evidence shows that although some of the repairs may have been completed at the time of the stage 2 complaint response on 30 November 2023, such as the sealing of the bath and cracks in the ceilings, the remainder of these works remained outstanding. This was a further, significant failing. There is no evidence which indicates why there were further delays.
Of particular concern is that the landlord identified the need for a mould wash on 20 August 2021. The evidence supports the resident’s account that this was not done. The landlord raised this again at the post works inspection in August 2023 but again failed to complete the mould wash. The landlord confirmed in internal emails on 7 November 2023 that the no mould washes had been completed. This was a significant failing, because mould can be prejudicial to health and should be treated promptly, as stated in our Spotlight Report.
The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident had not met its Customer Standards, increasing the distress and inconvenience caused. The evidence shows limited examples of proactive communication with the resident by the landlord. Due to limited records available, the extent of its correspondence with the resident is largely unclear. When asked by the landlord, the resident explained that she had ‘called many times’ to request an update on the repair, but that nothing had been done. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s account. It is likely that the resident went to extensive time and trouble to pursue to the outstanding works over the period.
Although the bathrooms in the property were surveyed and works scheduled, there is no evidence that the root causes of the mould in the bathroom were ever identified. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it conducted thorough investigations into the root causes of damp and mould, as set out in our Spotlight Report. This was a failing.
The resident reported to the landlord on 15 October 2023 that she had respiratory health conditions ‘which could be worsened by damp and mould’. In the internal emails of 7 November 2023 the landlord noted that a full damp and mould survey should be carried out at the property as a result. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failing. The resident described feeling that they had been ‘blacklisted’ by the landlord, evidencing damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
Throughout the period assessed, the evidence shows that mould was present in both bathrooms in the property. The resident also reported to us that there was, and still is, mould in the bedrooms, kitchen, and both bathrooms. The resident told us that during the period assessed, the landlord had refused to inspect or treat mould in the kitchen, because “mould in the kitchen is common”. There is no evidence of this.
In view of these factors and the significant delays seen, we have found severe maladministration. This is because:
1. there were significant, excessive, and unexplained delays in completing repairs, which were later repeated
2. the landlord failed to meet its Customer Standards in communicating with the resident around these repairs
3. the landlord missed multiple opportunities to complete a mould wash, which still had not been completed at the time of the stage 2 complaint response
4. the landlord failed to demonstrate effective and thorough investigations into the causes of damp and mould at the property
The resident and landlord appear to have conflicting accounts of the works which remain outstanding at the time of this determination. The resident also disputes some of the works reportedly done during the period assessed in this investigation. However, this has no bearing on the outcome of this investigation. This is because, regardless of any works which were completed, some works required to tackle the damp and mould remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 complaint response.
The evidence shows that it is likely that there are outstanding works or investigations required at the property at the time of this determination. To ensure that matters are resolved, the landlord is ordered to carry out a damp and mould survey at the property. It must then produce an action plan to demonstrate how and when it will complete any works identified.
In making this order, we have considered the resident’s account that his reports of mould elsewhere in the property, such as the bedrooms and kitchen, were not responded to. Although we have no evidence of this, we have considered this in view of our concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, which are explored later in this report. As a result, we have concluded that it is necessary that our orders are focussed on resolving the damp and mould in the property and extend beyond the bathrooms.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it offered £650 compensation. However, it is unclear how this was broken down and it appears some of this compensation was in respect of other elements of the resident’s complaint, such as the roof leak. We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation in more detail later in this report, which concludes that the landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of its handling of damp and mould was likely no more than £550 of the £650 offered.
The evidence available of the impact to the resident shows that the landlord was correct to pay compensation for the ‘time, trouble, and inconvenience’ caused by the delays and communication failings. Given the extensive delays described and the reported time and trouble gone to by the resident, it is unlikely that the amount apportioned adequately put things right.
Our Remedies Guidance states that where there has been severe maladministration, over a significant period of time, compensation of over £1,000 should usually be considered. We have ordered the landlord to pay £600 to the resident to reflect the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. This is in addition to further compensation which is ordered later in this report.
The evidence shows that there was also some additional adverse effect which the landlord did not consider. The resident explained to the landlord that the wet room was ‘unusable’ between August 2021 and 30 November 2023. The resident explained that this was because of leaks when running the shower and mould which was left untreated.
The landlord did not respond to this, dispute the resident’s account, or consider paying any compensation for the impact this had on the resident’s enjoyment of the property. The landlord’s repair logs do not contain enough detail to confirm or deny the resident’s account of the condition of the bathroom, and so it is reasonable to conclude that her reports were accurate.
Although the resident did have access to another bathroom, she told us that being without use of the wet room during this time was inconvenient and distressing due to her mobility issues. The landlord is ordered to pay an amount to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property. It has been calculated based on 5% of the rent paid for the period 12 November 2021 (when the repairs should have first been completed) to 30 November 2023 (107 weeks). This amount is to be paid in addition to the £1,200 above.
The landlord explained that the reason for the delays in completing the repairs in this case was due to its communication between it and its contractors. The evidence supports this assessment. There is no evidence however that the landlord took steps to learn from this in future cases.
On 30 August 2024 we determined case 202325045 and found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. We ordered the landlord to complete comprehensive learning under paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which are also relevant to the failings seen in this case. As such, no further learning orders have been made in this case. We have ordered the landlord to issue a formal apology to the resident.

Handling of a roof leak

The landlord’s Tenancy Guide gives ‘roof repair’ as an example of a ‘priority 4’ repair. This means it should complete the repair within 60 working days.
The resident told us that she had been reporting water ingress from the flat roof for a number of years, but there is no evidence of this. The resident reported that the leak led to water staining on the ceiling beneath, but that the water ingress did not cause any further damage.
The landlord’s records first show a roof repair as being raised on 16 August 2023. It engaged a specialist contractor to inspect on 29 August 2023. The repair was possibly completed on 23 November 2023, though this is unclear as a date of 30 November 2023 is also recorded. The landlord did not say that the repair had been completed in its stage 2 response. This was at least 71 working days from the date it was identified. Therefore there was a short delay.
The evidence shows that the landlord received a quote for the repair on 2 October 2023, but did not appear to keep a record of it. It only realised its mistake when the resident complained that the repair remained outstanding, which prompted it to chase the contractor. It then approved the quote on 16 November 2023. There was an avoidable delay of over 6 weeks in approving the quote.
The evidence shows that the adverse effect caused by the roof leak was minor. The resident however also had to complain to the landlord to receive an update on the outstanding repair, incurring unnecessary time and trouble.
The landlord was correct therefore to offer compensation in its stage 2 complaint response for delays around repairs and time and trouble. Our Remedies Guidance states that where that has been a service failure over a short duration, resulting in the resident’s time, trouble, and disappointment, compensation of at least £50 should be considered. The landlord therefore made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of a roof leak.
The delays appear to have been caused by inadequacies in the landlord’s record keeping practices. Therefore the landlord’s learning has been considered as part of the record keeping section later in this report.

Request to update the resident’s household details

The resident requested to amend the list of names of residents at the property on the landlord’s systems on 9 July 2022. The resident later complained that this had not been done. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that this was done promptly at the time, however it had not communicated with the resident effectively about this.
The evidence is somewhat unclear, but shows that the landlord did likely action the resident’s request at some point in 2022. If there was a delay, there is no evidence that it caused any adverse effect.
There is no indication in the landlord’s policies and procedures of how it should approach changes to the tenancy information, such as expected timescales or its communication with the resident. However its Customer Standard to “maintain regular contact and act in a timely manner to ensure expectations are met in a reasonable time scale” suggests that it should have confirmed that the changes were made with the resident once they had been done.
There is no evidence however that the landlord confirmed the changes with the resident. In not doing so, the resident went to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing the matter, and this was a failing. It was appropriate that it resolved to write to the resident confirming the changes as an outcome of her complaint.
It is likely, but not clear, from the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response that it included an amount for this in its compensation offer relating to communication. As above, the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance sets out that in instances of a minor service failure resulting in time and trouble, compensation of at least £50 should be considered. The landlord therefore provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to update her household details with the landlord.

Request to install an additional light in the kitchen

The landlord’s Tenancy Guide states that ‘tenants with disabilities who have difficulties in using their present facilities can ask the landlord to carry out improvements and adaptations to suit their needs. If residents require adaptations or improvements, (the relevant staff member) will contact the Occupational Therapist on your behalf.’
The resident first requested an installation of a second light in the kitchen on 12 July 2022. The landlord did not provide records of the original request, so it is unclear if the landlord was aware of the reason for this request. Internal emails from August 2022 note that there was an outstanding “request for permission to improve the kitchen”.
There is no evidence that the landlord ever considered responded to the resident’s request at this time. This was a failing in communication, as the landlord failed to follow its Customer Standards.
On 2 July 2023 the resident complained and again requested the installation of an additional light in the kitchen. She clearly stated on this occasion that she was unable see part of the kitchen at night due to her eyesight. The landlord should have treated this in line with the process outlined in the Tenancy Guide.
The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the relevant staff member, which was appropriate. However there is no evidence of what happened after this point. The resident reported to our Service that the staff member declined the request, but did not offer an explanation as to why. There is no evidence that the staff member contacted an Occupational Therapist, as per the process. This was a failing.
It is unclear whether an Occupational Therapist would have recommended the installation of an additional light. As such, we cannot say with any level of certainty that had the landlord followed its process, it would have led to a different outcome for the resident. The landlord is ordered to follow the process set out in the tenancy guide, concluding with a written decision about the resident’s request which clearly explains why the decision has been made.
The resident’s request for a new kitchen light, first made in July 2021, remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 complaint response on 30 November 2023. The landlord had several opportunities to recognise its failing and put things right by correctly following the process, but it did not. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen light.
The evidence shows that the resident went to unnecessary time and trouble and suffered disappointment and distress, as a result of the landlord’s failings, over a period of more than 2 years. The landlord is ordered to pay £250 compensation to reflect this adverse effect. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord is also ordered to assess its staff training needs in respect of its handling of requests for adaptations and improvements. It should organise any training it identifies as being necessary for the relevant personnel.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs was published in March 2019. It states that it is “vital landlord’s keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records”.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) was published in May 2023. It states that “failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify failings, and contributes to inadequate communication and redress”. Both were reflected clearly in this case.
The landlord either did not retain or did not provide records of its contact with the resident. This impacted the service the landlord was able to provide. For example, in its ability to accurately assess the adverse effect caused by its failings, and to make a reasonable offer of redress with regard to its handling of damp and mould. This also led to the landlord having to approach the resident for information to fill in gaps in its records. This was a failing.
It also impacted the landlord’s handling of repairs, primarily because the detail included in its repair logs was vague. In internal emails seen during this investigation, there are examples of this leading to a poor understanding of both the nature and progress of repairs. At times, the landlord did not appear to have access to important information it needed to progress repairs.
It also impacted our ability to investigate this case, particularly where there were facts of the case which are in dispute. This investigation found that, at times, the landlord’s internal narrative around repairs could not be relied upon.
Of particular concern is that the landlord told this Service that it had no record of any vulnerabilities at the property. The evidence shows that the landlord was informed on multiple occasions that the resident had low mobility, a condition affecting her eyesight, and a respiratory condition. The landlord understood that this was important information to consider when planning repairs in internal emails of 7 November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord recorded this or asked for more information, which was a failing.
The adverse effect caused to the resident by the landlord’s record keeping has been considered in the relevant sections of this report, based on how it impacted the service provided. It is important that the landlord learns from outcomes. There is no evidence that it did this when it had the opportunity to do so in its complaint handling. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
On 3 October 2023 we determined case 202124195 and found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. This was because it “failed to keep accurate records of the repairs or if works they been completed.” We also found that the landlord “failed to adequately progress or record actions towards addressing (the relevant repairs)”. We ordered the landlord to review its record keeping, specifically its processes for maintaining records to ensure repairs completed are appropriately recorded. As such, there is no further learning ordered in this regard.

Compensation

As referenced throughout this report, the landlord’s breakdown of compensation was not clear. It appeared to acknowledge some failings, though at times it is unclear which element of the complaint it was referring to. It then went on to offer generic compensation in respect of “delays, poor communication, inconvenience, time, and trouble”. This was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It is not necessary to consider the landlord’s complaint handling more widely in this report, because this did not in itself adversely affect the resident. However, we have tried to understand the landlord’s intentions in its compensation offer, and apportioned amounts to each element of the complaint where it has acknowledged failings. We have done this based on our Remedies Guidance and explained this in more detail in the relevant sections of the report.
As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that of the £650 offered, the landlord offered:
1. £550 in respect of its failings in the handling of reports of damp and mould
2. £50 in respect of its failure to effectively communicate with the resident about updates to her household details
3. £50 in respect of its handling of the roof leak
4. Nothing in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for the installation of an additional light in the kitchen

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of a roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to update her household details.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the installation of an additional light in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £850 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould. The £550 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
  2. £250 in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for an additional kitchen light.
2. Pay the resident an additional amount of compensation equal to 5% of the rent paid for the period 12 November 2021 to 30 November 2023. When sending evidence of compliance to this Service, it should include evidence of its calculations.
3. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report. This apology should be sent by a senior member of staff.
Within 14 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Attend the property and carry out an in depth damp and mould survey. It must then produce an action plan setting out how and when it complete any works identified. It must share this action plan and the survey on which it is based with both the resident and this Service.
2. Reconsider the resident’s request for an additional kitchen light in line with its policies and procedures for considering aids and adaptations. It should then write to the resident with its decision and a clear explanation of the reasons why.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must assess its staff training needs in respect of the handling of requests for adaptations and improvements. It should then arrange this training within a further 12 weeks.
1. If the landlord has conducted appropriate training for relevant personnel after 30 November 2023, it may send evidence of this to this Service and we will consider if this reasonably satisfies this order.

Recommendations

We have made 2 findings of reasonable redress in this case on the basis that the £50 compensation offered in respect of each has already been paid. Therefore the landlord should pay the £100 already offered in respect of these 2 elements if it has not done so already.