London Borough of Brent (202436365)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436365

London Borough of Brent

26 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has told us he has had spinal surgery and is still recovering. 
3. On 30 January 2024, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property to assess the reported damp and mould. It raised some works which included mould washes, redecoration, and the installation of extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
4. On 23 April 2024 the resident complained that the landlord’s attempts to resolve the water ingress in his property had not worked, following the surveyor’s visit. The resident noted that the water ingress was caused by a leak from the flat above, which was occupied by a private tenant.  He said that the water ingress was causing damp and he had needed to turn the electricity off in his property because the water ingress was affecting the lighting circuit. The resident explained that, while the landlord had provided dehumidifiers, these had been too expensive to run and the landlord had told him it would not cover the cost of this. The resident asked for compensation, and for the leak to be stopped. 
5. On 2 May 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It outlined the steps it had taken, including attempts to install extractor fans and a mould wash in the bedroom. It had booked further mould washes and redecoration works for 15 to 17 May 2024.
6. In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the presence of damp and mould in the property. It outlined that the resident needed to schedule an appointment with its contractor so that a hole could be cut to install the extractor fan, and that this would prevent further mould growth. The landlord explained that dehumidifiers were needed to reduce moisture in the property so the remedial works could be completed.
7. On 30 July 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He expressed frustration that the landlord expected him to pay for the running costs of the dehumidifiers and that the landlord’s response had not addressed the cause of the water ingress. The resident asked the landlord to address the cause of the issue rather than the symptoms. He also complained that the water ingress had damaged his flooring and asked the landlord to replace it or cover the cost for a like for like replacement.
8. On 11 September 2024 the landlord provided its final response. It said:
   1. It would consider reimbursements for the cost of running the dehumidifier on a case by case basis.
   2. The surveyor had not identified a cause of the damp and mould to support the resident’s claim of a leak from the above flat. It would arrange a further survey to address this.
   3. The resident should claim on his contents insurance for the flooring.
   4. An appointment had been scheduled for 30 September 2025 to redecorate the bedroom and lounge.
9. The landlord offered compensation of £500, which included the cost of running the dehumidifiers for the 2 days the resident used them.
10. The resident escalated his complaint to us because the damp and mould in the property had not been resolved and the landlord had not completed any repairs to address the water ingress. The resident stated he wanted to be rehoused as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. It is understood that there have been historical reports of water ingress by the resident, including a disrepair claim which was settled in 2023. We expect residents escalate matters to us within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports throughout 2024, because this is what was referenced in the resident’s complaint and is what the landlord has responded to in its complaint response.
12. Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 11 September 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.

The resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould

13. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) report states landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The report states that ‘landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’.
14. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, which is available on its website, states that it will respond to all reports of damp and mould within 28 days. It will look into what is causing the mould and work with the resident on a plan to fix it as quickly as possible. Its surveyors will upgrade humidity-control appliances, remove mould, and redecorate affected areas.
15. The landlord’s records show that it carried out a damp and mould survey on 30 January 2024. It is unclear which report this inspection was raised in relation to in order to assess if it responded on time. The landlord’s records suggest it attended on 21 February 2024 to install extractor fans but was unable to because the contractor was not able to complete the preparation work themselves. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm what works were required and what order its contractors should attend, to make sure the work could be completed as soon as possible. Its failure to do so caused unnecessary repeated visits.
16. The landlord appears to have attended several times to carry out work to improve the ventilation in the property. It is unclear from the records whether this work was completed and when. The resident was evidently frustrated by the landlord’s lack of action. On one occasion, the resident requested that the landlord confirm what works its contractor would be completing when it attended but it is unclear if the landlord provided this information. This was a missed opportunity to keep him informed.
17. A mould wash was carried out in the resident’s bedroom on 22 March 2024. The landlord’s records show mould washes in other areas of the property were booked for 15 May 2024. These visits occurred outside of the landlord’s advertised response times. It is unclear why there was a delay of several weeks for the first mould wash and a further delay for the rest of the property.
18. While not meeting a policy timeframe is not necessarily a failing in itself, we would expect to see evidence that the resident was being kept up to date with the progress of the works and the reasons for any delays. During this time, the landlord is expected to manage the resident’s expectations and provide assurances that it is taking the matter seriously. This was not the resident’s experience in this case.
19. The landlord appears to have carried out further mould washes throughout 2024, but this has not resolved the matter for the resident. Mould washes do not address the cause of the mould or prevent it returning. While it was appropriate to remove the immediate issue, it was a failing that the landlord did not address why it was occurring.
20. The landlord’s records suggest that there were occasions where the resident did not allow access or did not facilitate an appointment, for example the landlord stated that the resident did not book an appointment with the window glazer. Repairs often require the cooperation of residents to facilitate appointments and ensure the landlord has access to the property. While we do not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, any delays which occurred solely because of the resident declining appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
21. Given that some of the works identified by the landlord could not be completed until a window glazer had attended, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence it had continued to take steps to arrange this visit. For example, the landlord could have reminded the resident of his obligation to allow access for repairs or discussed with the resident if there were any barriers to him allowing access. Had it done so, it may have been able to resolve the issues sooner.
22. The resident had told the landlord on several occasions that he felt the water ingress and subsequent mould was caused by a leak from the upstairs flat. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response indicated that the January 2024 inspection provided no indication of the cause of the issues reported. However, the survey report confirms that the cause of water ingress was a roof leak from an external communal pipe. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it acted promptly and appropriately to address the cause of damp. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations or demonstrate it understood his concerns which caused distress. Although the communal repairs appear to have now been addressed, the landlord’s failure to show it had acted promptly and appropriately to resolve the root cause of damp is a significant failing.
23. The resident also complained that the water ingress was affecting his electrical lighting and stated he had turned the electricity off. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or considered this when deciding how to act or when responding to his complaint which was inappropriate and caused distress to the resident.
24. While it was appropriate for the landlord to supply dehumidifiers to the resident, it would have been appropriate for it to explain its process for reimbursing costs for their usage to the resident. The resident had expressed concerns about the running costs, and the landlord was silent about its approach to reimbursements until its stage 2 response, which came several months later. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not provide this information when the resident first raised his concerns or prior to removing them from the property.
25. The landlord later asserted that the delay in completing the identified works was, in part, due to the resident’s failure to use the dehumidifiers for more than 2 days because the property had not dried out. This was inappropriate because it placed blame on the resident who had explained he could not afford to run them and wasn’t aware he could be reimbursed.
26. The resident informed the landlord that his flooring had been damaged by the ongoing water ingress. He requested that the landlord replace the flooring or cover the cost for a like for like replacement. The resident did not say how the damage was caused or when. The flooring was installed by the resident. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of all improvements and alterations they make.
27. Because the resident had asserted it was the landlord’s inaction that caused the damage, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide its insurance details, as well as directing the resident to his own insurers so the resident could decide whether to make a claim and which avenue to use.
28. In its final complaint response, the landlord noted it would arrange a further survey to take place because the January 2024 survey did not identify the cause of the damp and mould. However, this was incorrect as the cause of the damp had been identified and a further survey was not required. The landlord failed to act promptly and appropriately to address the root cause of damp and mould. 
29. In summary, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould. The following are aggravating factors in determining the outcome of this investigation:
    1. There are still moisture issues in the property.
    2. The landlord has not shown that it took prompt and appropriate steps to address the root cause of damp and mould.
    3. The landlord’s failure to explain that it could reimburse the resident for the cost of the dehumidifiers at the earliest opportunity. 
    4. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint about his electrics.
    5. The distress experienced by the resident.
30. We acknowledge that the landlord has made some attempts to put things right by offering compensation. However, we consider that the landlord has not gone far enough. The landlord has not outlined any reflection or learning to improve its service. We have made orders below to reflect this.
31. To decide what orders to make, we have considered our remedies guidance which is available on our website. The evidence in this case suggests that there has been a failure which has had a detrimental effect on the resident, and the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In light of this, the landlord must pay the resident £800 compensation.
32. The resident has explained to us that the mould is still present in the property. The resident has recently had spinal surgery and explained that having to move his furniture in order for the landlord to complete work caused him significant pain. He also noted that he was concerned about living in the property while repairs were carried out because of the disruption this would case.
33. We have made an order for the landlord to inspect the property, outline what steps it intends to take to resolve the issues, and a timeframe for this work. We recommend that the landlord offers support to the resident if there is any heavy lifting or furniture that needs to be moved in order to complete the work. The resident has also raised new concerns about excessive cold and a lack of support to move out of the property. We have made recommendations to the landlord to take further action in relation to these matters.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination.
    2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £800 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to this report. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed. £500 of the landlord’s previous offer can be deducted from this amount, if already paid.
36. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
    1. Carried out an inspection of the property and set out its position on what works are required in relation to the damp and mould.
    2. Written to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when the work identified will be completed. As part of this the landlord must confirm whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether it will be safe for the resident to remain in the property during the course of the works.

Recommendations

37. The landlord is to:
    1. Provide its insurance details to the resident.
    2. Offer support to the resident with any heavy lifting or moving furniture that is needed to facilitate any works required.
    3. Arrange for a heat loss survey to be completed in the property. If the surveyor recommends further works to improve the degree of thermal comfort in the property, the landlord should provide the resident with a schedule of works within 28 days of the survey report.
    4. Discuss with the resident’s representative the option of moving and offer any support it can in helping them to identify a suitable new property.