Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

London Borough of Croydon (202405183)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405183

London Borough of Croydon

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 3-bedroom end of terrace house. The resident has cancer and is vulnerable. She occupies the property with her children and husband who has long term illnesses. The resident’s daughter acted as her representative during the complaint – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. In November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and water penetrating through the walls in the bathroom. In March 2023, the resident reported that all the window seals in the property were faulty, resulting in condensation. On 1 May 2023 the landlord surveyed the property, undertook a mould wash and raised a number of repair works. These included plastering, ventilation improvements and various external works. It later raised a bathroom replacement and the overhaul of windows.
  3. On 20 October 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said the repairs had not taken place and felt there was a lack of communication between the landlord and its contractors. She added she had taken time off work for repairs only for them to be left incomplete. Between December 2023 and February 2024, various work orders were raised including resealing windows. In January, February and March 2024, the resident made several reports of leaks affecting the bathroom.
  4. On 3 March 2024 the resident complained again to the landlord about the damp and mould and leaks. She was concerned about the living conditions and the health of the household. She added the landlord had failed to address root causes of the issues and she was unhappy with the landlord’s actions. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to expedite the repairs and resolve the issues.
  5. On 17 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in providing its response. It said the matter was first passed to its damp and mould team on 10 April 2023 and it undertook a mould wash on 5 May 2023. In 2024, it arranged a further damp and mould survey and CCTV drainage survey – the latter revealed various defects within the pipework which caused leaks near the external wall of the bathroom and contributed to the damp and mould. It noted a surveyor recommended repairs earlier in 2024 but failed to raise them. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said surveyors attended on 8 and 16 May 2024 and raised a number of works including renewing windows, kitchen door and frame, plastering and bathroom works.
  6. On 31 May 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She reiterated her escalation request on 29 July 2024 saying the works were still outstanding and wanted immediate action to resolve this. She also wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience. Between late July and November 2024, further inspections and a number of works took place. These included a repair to the drain pipe, window replacements, plastering and installation of a new bathroom.
  7. On 21 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It upheld the complaint and apologised about its delayed responses. It also apologised for the delays in resolving the repairs. It stated while some remedial works had taken place, it did not manage outstanding works effectively and noted some works were still outstanding. Following a joint inspection with its contractor on 22 August 2024, a number of work orders were raised. The landlord said it would expedite any remaining repairs including the painting. It offered compensation of £1,900 made up of £1,000 for distress and inconvenience, £600 for the delay in repairs and £300 for its delayed complaint responses.
  8. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said some works remained incomplete including extractor fans and some plastering and painting. She felt the landlord failed to co-ordinate the works in a timely manner and that she had gone to excessive time and trouble to progress matters. She added she had experienced financial losses due to extra heating and electricity costs. As a resolution, she wanted further compensation for the inconvenience and stress and the landlord to complete the outstanding repair work.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident was concerned the damp and mould may have a negative impact on the household’s physical health. It is beyond the expertise of the service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Where there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused and this investigation will therefore consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies, and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.
  2. This service has seen an inspection took place in March 2022 that found visible mould in kitchen and bathroom and repairs were raised in April 2022. However, we may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, this report will therefore focus on the relevant events from October 2022, this being 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of October 2023, to the landlord’s final response of November 2024 and any commitments it made. This is because it is difficult for us to investigate further back than that as records may not be available, accounts become less reliable and it becomes more problematic to validate and verify information.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to keep the structure and exterior of the premises, including walls, external doors, windows and water pipes, in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord has a “Repair Guide for Tenants” which sets out the timescales and definition for repairs. Emergency repairs, such as severe flooding, have a target of within 2 hours where the landlord will make the property safe and will then follow up to carry out the actual repair at a later date. Urgent repairs, those to remove a health and safety risk, should be attended to within 24 hours with the actual repair carried out at a later date. Non-urgent repairs are small simple repairs needed to prevent inconvenience to the resident and have a target of 15 working days.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy dated July 2023 states that it will carry out an inspection and mould wash within 6 working days of the initial report. Based on the results of the inspection, its surveyor will carry out a further visit to determine the cause and provide a report of remedial works required. In cases where extensive work is required, residents may need to be temporarily decanted while the works are completed. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial damp and mould reports but is referenced to as a sensible guide. The landlord has a newer damp and mould policy dated August 2024 with an emphasis on considering the vulnerabilities of a household. It also states 6 months after the remedial work has been completed, the landlord will re-visit the property to ensure it is free from damp and mould.
  3. This service expects a landlord to have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports are timely and reflects the urgency of the issue. The repair log for the property indicates previous historical reports of leaks and damp and mould from April 2022 onwards. As the landlord had recorded similar issues during the resident’s occupation of the property, it should have put the landlord on notice that the damp reported as part of the resident’s complaint required active management. While this report does not assess the historical incidents of damp or repairs, it provides context that the landlord was aware that this was an ongoing issue at the resident’s property.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to coordinate the required remedial works satisfactorily. The adverse effect caused to the resident was likely significant given the fact vulnerable adults with long-term illnesses occupied the property.
  5. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of reports of damp and mould. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  6. Despite the resident reporting damp in November 2022 and the landlord acknowledging this on its system in February 2023, it did not undertake any meaningful actions until May 2023 where it carried out and inspection and completed a mould wash. This was an avoidable delay and the landlord acted contrary to its damp and mould timescales. While multiple repair works were raised in May 2023 regarding damp and mould, it is unclear if and when these happened, though it is apparent some plastering took place.
  7. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord was unable to verify what repairs were marked as complete by its previous contractor in 2023. It also noted it had no record of the resident’s queries raised – only details of the repairs report. This likely affected the landlord’s ability to determine what had happened and when and is indicative of poor record keeping. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the inadequate record keeping has hindered the service from being able to fully ascertain what took place, and therefore, the full extent of the detriment. However, no orders have been made in this respect as the Ombudsman has made record-keeping orders in similar landlord cases.
  8. Between July and November 2023 the resident raised concerns about the plastering, and it appears the landlord raised a large number of work orders regarding this as well as overhauling all the windows in the property. However, the landlord failed to carry out these works within a reasonable timescale. Indeed, the landlord’s records indicate the window works were not completed until October 2024. This was a substantial amount of time considering this had been initially raised as early March 2023 – over 18 months earlier.
  9. In October 2023, the resident raised concerns about the large cracks and the quality of workmanship of the plastering that had been carried out. Although the landlord records showed it carried out some plastering works in the property, these were not completed in their entirety and the landlord acknowledged plastering had not been fully completed in May 2024. Indeed despite some plastering works have been carried out on 4 June 2024, follow on works were recommended. Further works orders were raised in August and October 2024, which appeared to be complete by 5 November 2024. The Ombudsman does however appreciate a number of leaks were reported in 2024 after the initial damp and mould, and further plastering was likely needed amidst remedial works. It is noted nevertheless that these leaks reported in early 2024 were not completed within the urgent repairs timescales as they should have been.
  10. Following the resident’s formal complaint of 3 March 2024, the landlord attended around 11 March 2024. However, it is unclear what action was undertaken at this time. On 16 April 2024 a damp survey took place where no specialist remedial works were recommended but it was suggested to update bathroom and kitchen extraction fans. Confusingly, a further damp and mould survey took place a few weeks later around 9 May 2024 which identified a range of works including renewing various windows, kitchen door and frame, as well as plastering in the kitchen and works in bathroom. Yet, these were not completed within a reasonable time. Further, it is unclear why these works were not identified in its April 2024 survey.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 response recognised that there had been delays due to its surveyor having attended early in 2024 failed to raise repairs and had since left the landlord. While it was reasonable to uphold the complaint, apologise and arrange for a number of other works, it did not offer any compensation and should have promptly completed the outstanding repairs. Instead, it continued to raise further surveys and more contractor attendance which the resident felt did not move things along. While internal damp works and exterior rendering were completed in June and July 2024, the resident said the plastering was outstanding. She continued to chase in July and August 2024.
  12. As regards the CCTV drainage survey, the landlord initially raised this work order on 2 April 2024 which was attended in good time but needed specialist further works. These were subsequently raised on 22 April 2024 and its contractor attended on 5 July 2024 however access was needed to a neighbouring property and so the request was sent back to the landlord. Subsequently the landlord engaged with the neighbour and work to repair the collapsed section of drain pipe was completed on 12 September 2024. While this delay was out of the landlord’s control, there is limited evidence to suggest the resident was updated in the intervening period about the delays.
  13. Following a joint inspection with the landlord and its contractorin August 2024  21 issues were found.Indeed, an internal note dated 21 August 2024 stated most of the works remain outstanding with no appointments scheduled. This is very concerning considering the formal complaints made and stage 1 response regarding the matter. It undertook a joint inspection with its contractorin October 2024 as it was still unclear on what works were outstanding and that its previous surveyor had not post-inspected works in June 2024. In any case, considering the initial reports in November 2022, it is apparent the resident waited a substantial time for the landlord to carry out damp and mould repairs and left the household in an unsatisfactory condition for longer than she should have expected. This was not appropriate, especially given that the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of members of the household.
  14. With respect to the bathroom replacement, despite being raised in July 2023, was not completed until November 2024 – well over 12 months later. On 18 November 2024 the landlord identified 2 actions – addressing a pipework issue to prevent further damp issues and outstanding render coat repairs and painting. The landlord asserted that the resident refused rendering work in November 2024. She was unhappy as the damp and mould team only intended to carry out a small patch of rendering and painting, and she wanted it carried out in its entirety. The damp and mould team believed the remaining rendering work sat with the landlord’s repairs team.
  15. Considering the delays and circumstances of the case, this was inappropriate and the landlord should have carried out all necessary rendering work in an efficient manner. By not doing so, this caused further disruption and distress to the resident who had gone to significant time and trouble to progress works. Landlords should have seamless communication between teams and departments. Again, no orders have been made in this respect as the Ombudsman has made similar orders in other landlord cases.
  16. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman she said she lost earnings accommodating contractors and the landlord’s offer of compensation did not reflect this. The Ombudsman appreciates the distress caused when a resident has taken time off to accommodate contractors, only for appointments to be rescheduled. This would have caused frustration; and this was clearly a resident who wanted to engage and work with her landlord to resolve the mould issues and improve living conditions for the household. Our remedies guidance states it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for repairs. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order for a landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where the landlord had failed to resolve a repair issue.
  17. She also advised the Ombudsman that she had incurred increased utility costs as she was using a dehumidifier and the landlord’s contractors were using her electricity when carrying out works. The landlord should offer to reimburse the resident for any increased utility costs due to the delayed repairs and a recommendation has been made for it to do so.
  18. The landlord’s final response said there were delay in repairs of 8 months which was not disputed by the resident. It failed to treat the issue with the necessary urgency from the outset, there were communication issues with its contractor and poor handling on the landlord’s part to co-ordinate works effectively. Further, the resident had to regularly chase the landlord for updates throughout. While it is appreciated the resident felt the landlord’s actions did not resolve the matter and informed the service that there were outstanding matters after she had completed the complaints process, the Ombudsman considered this was a complex case, with a large number of repairs raised between 2023 and 2024, along with new leaks being reported during the course of the damp and mould works. This understandably complicated matters for the landlord and there is ample evidence that the landlord endeavoured to conduct surveys, inspection and work in response to her reports.
  19. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property was poor and it missed several opportunities to reassure the resident that it was taking ownership of the works and proactive steps to address her concerns. Despite the landlord being aware of the issues as early as November 2022, it did not treat the matter with the necessary urgency and the damp and mould persisted which indicates it failed to adequately consider the household’s health conditions. Further, the delays are attributed to the landlord by its failure to coordinate repairs and by not having satisfactory oversight of work carried out by its contractors with numerous work orders being cancelled by its contractor with no reason being provided. Had the landlord had appropriate oversight of works, including prompt post-inspection, it is likely it could have appropriately managed the resident’s expectations and completed works sooner.
  20. This Service’s remedies guidance sets out that awards from £1,000 should be considered where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We can see that the landlord acted in line with this, paying £1,600 in recognition and has since taken steps to ensure potential solutions were explored and implemented.
  21. Nevertheless, the landlord advised this service in January 2025 that “95% of the damp and mould work is completed”. The landlord booked a joint inspection with its surveyors and contractor for 20 January 2025. However, it is unclear what, if any actions, came about from this meeting. Having spoken with the resident in February 2025, she agreed most work has been completed although she said that extractor fans and some plastering and painting remained outstanding. It is noted the landlord’s records state the fans were replaced in 2023, but its April 2024 survey found the fans should be upgraded.
  22. This is concerning considering the landlord’s final response said it would expedite any remains repairs including the painting and it does not appear to have honoured what it said it would do. This amounts to service failure and an order has been made. The Ombudsman has also noted the resident queried with the landlord that she had not heard back from the samples taken from the ceiling. A further recommendation has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. At stage 1, it aims to issue a response within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement. At stage 2, it aims to issue a response within 20 working days from the date of acknowledgement. If the complaint is complicated and likely to take loner to resolve, the investigating officer will set and agree a revised timescales of no more than a 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 workings days at stage 2, as an extension and keep the resident up to date on its progress.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2023. While the landlord acknowledge this on 10 November 2023, there is no evidence the landlord responded to this complaint. This was despite it saying it would respond by 20 November 2023. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt her concerns were being ignored.
  3. The resident made another formal complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2024. The landlord’s records state the complaint was logged on 7 March 2024, however the Ombudsman has not seen that the landlord acknowledged this complaint contrary to its policy. As the resident did not hear back from the landlord, she referred the matter to the Ombudsman on 30 April 2024 and continued to chase the landlord. This caused time and trouble for the resident who continued to contact the Ombudsman for assistance.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2024. This was over 50 working days after the March 2024 complaint and significantly outsides its policy timescales. This would have caused distress to the resident. While the landlord acted fairly by apologising for this, it missed an opportunity to offer compensation at stage 1 for this error.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 31 May 2024. In response the landlord told her she needed to contact the complaints resolution explaining why she felt the complaint had not been investigated properly, or any new significant evidence that may affect the decisions made. This was inappropriate and contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code dated April 2024 which states “residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration”.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 November 2024. This was over 120 working days after the escalation request which again was significantly outside its policy timescales. This led to the resident chasing on more than one occasion. Although the landlord informed the resident on 29 August 2024 that the complaint was taking longer than anticipated, it had already failed to issue its final response within 20 working days. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord notified the resident of any delay as required by its policy. The landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier and these delays in its formal responses likely caused distress and frustration to the resident who may have felt ignored or that her complaint was not being taken seriously.
  7. Nevertheless, the landlord’s final response apologised for its lack of communication, delays and mishandling of the complaint and in recognition offered £300 compensation. This is in line with this service’s remedies guidance which states that offers from £100 should be made where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. While the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory, it acted fairly in its final response by recognising its errors, apologising, identifying learning and offering an amount of compensation to put matters right that went above and beyond what the Ombudsman would award. Taken altogether, the Ombudsman considers that £300 compensation offered as a financial remedy was fair and reasonable in recognition of its complaint handling failings and adequately reflected the detriment caused to the resident by the delays and poor communication.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Order

  1. The landlord must inspect the resident’s property, and establish if there are any outstanding repairs including the extractor fans, plastering and painting. The landlord must provide a copy of the inspection report to both the resident and the Ombudsman which should clearly set out any works that are required, an action plan to resolve them and anticipated timescales.
  2. The landlord must contact the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with this order.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Contact the resident to request evidence of any increased utility bills during the repairs process and consider reimbursement towards any increased amounts.
    2. Update the resident about the samples taken from the ceiling and consider sharing the report with her, if it has not done so already.