Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Ealing (202430100)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430100

London Borough of Ealing

5 August 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 a roof leak, which caused damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a 3-bedroom maisonette within a block. The landlord is a council. It has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but has told the Ombudsman it was told that she has had a stroke and is vulnerable. The resident has been supported with her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman by a relative, who will also be referred to as the resident for ease of reading.
  2. On 23 May 2024 the resident called the landlord to report that the guttering was blocked and damaged. She said the water was leaking out and on to the balcony below, which formed the roof of the property and water was leaking through. She called it again on 18 June 2024 and said it had attended but said it needed scaffolding, and she had not heard anything further. She called it 5 times between 19 June 2024 and 7 August 2024 to chase the repair, and said the leak was causing damp and mould in the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. She also said the water had caused damage to the external rendering on the block. It noted it had rejected a previous quote for scaffolding. She made a stage 1 complaint on 30 August 2024, which was about:
    1. The continuing roof leak since May 2024, which was causing damp and mould. She was not able to use her bedroom because of this and was vulnerable due to having had a stroke and other health conditions.
    2. Its lack of communication and failure to provide updates about the scaffolding or the repair.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 September 2024 and requested an extension of time on 13 September 2024. It provided its stage 1 response on 25 September 2024, in which it:
    1. Partially upheld the complaint.
    2. Said it had raised a repair in May 2024, and its system said the repair was completed. However, it would re-inspect as soon as it had put scaffolding up.
    3. Explained it had tried to inspect the property on 12 August 2024 and following there had been a miscommunication between its contractors.
    4. Said the only repair it had recorded outstanding was for rendering.
  4. The same day the resident asked to escalate her complaint. On 6 November 2024 she called the landlord and said the leak was still ongoing. She explained the mould was having a negative impact. It noted it had cleaned the guttering in July 2024 and confirmed the leak had stopped then. It inspected the property and produced a surveyor’s report on 29 November 2024. It identified defective guttering but said there was no leak inside. It completed a damp and mould survey on 6 February 2025 which also noted a leak from the guttering and balcony. It identified, and photographed, damp and mould present in several rooms. The landlord’s surveyor inspected again on 7 March 2025 and found water ingress caused by a leak from the guttering and balcony above.
  5. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 9 and 23 April 2025 to ask it to provide a stage 2 response. It provided its response on 30 April 2025, in which it:
    1. Upheld the complaint. It said it had inspected on 24 April 2025 and had raised a repair for the balcony, which it would complete in the next 28 days. It said it would then inspect the property for damp and mould.
    2. Said it had raised a “series of orders” to investigate historical leaks. The block was part of a regeneration programme which had been put on hold due to budgets.
    3. Apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered £95 compensation for this.
  6. The resident has told the Ombudsman she is disabled and has been repeatedly hospitalised due to infections caused by damp and mould. The landlord’s communication has been poor. It finally carried out repairs on 17 July 2025 and she is monitoring to see whether these have been effective. She has also submitted a claim to her insurers for the internal damage caused by the leak, damp and mould, but had to wait until the landlord did repairs before she could. She also said waiting for the landlord has delayed her being able to fit new radiators due to the condition of her walls.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised within her complaint that her health has been negatively affected by damp and mould being present in the property. While we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of a roof leak, which caused damp and mould

  1. Under the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the property. It confirms this within its repairs handbook. The landlord is also responsible for cleaning, repairing or replacing guttering as required under the lease. Its repairs policy confirmed that it is not responsible for internal repairs to leasehold properties “unless a fault to the structure of the building causes internal damage”. Under its policy it classes repairs as either emergency (attend within 4 hours) or routine (repair within 28 working days), however it will prioritise repairs according to residents’ needs.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the guttering in May 2024. The landlord correctly accepted responsibility, in line with its obligations, and raised a repair. The resident said it inspected and said it needed scaffolding but never returned. The landlord has not provided evidence of this, and did not keep the resident updated about the repair which was a failing. Despite her chasing it, it failed to progress it or chase its contractors. It told the resident in August 2024 it had rejected a quote for scaffolding. There is no evidence of why it did which was a failing.
  3. Within its stage 1 response it incorrectly said that it had completed the repair based on its records. Positively it said it would inspect, but it did not give a timeframe for this or any details on when it would put scaffolding up. It accepted there had been miscommunication between its contractors but failed to acknowledge its own poor communication. While it is positive that it inspected the block it delayed for over 2 months after its stage 1 response to do so. It failed to complete repairs but reinspected twice with the same repairs being identified. By the date of its stage 2 response, almost a year after the repair was reported, the landlord had still failed to carry out the repairs. This was a substantial failing and not in line with its repairing obligations or its repair policy timeframes. Although positively it said it would complete the repairs within 28 days, it failed to do so. The landlord took one year and 2 months to complete repairs, which was an unacceptable delay.
  4. In addition to reporting the leak the resident also reported damp and mould, due to water ingress. She explained the impact it was having on the property and her health and not being able to use her bedroom. However, the landlord failed to consider this when arranging repairs and failed to manage them. Under its damp and mould policy it will triage reports of damp and mould and inspect high risk cases. It is not clear whether the landlord did this. It did inspect in February 2025, but this was 6 months after she first reported it and an unreasonable delay. The landlord did not prioritise the repairs once it received the report which was a failing. It also did not complete a mould treatment due to the property being leasehold. In the circumstances of delayed repairs, and the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been reasonable to have made an exception and completed the treatment.
  5. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. The landlord did not follow its damp and mould policy. It did not inspect promptly, or act to resolve the cause of damp and mould which was structural and its responsibility to repair.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Although the landlord upheld the complaint at stage 2, it failed to acknowledge any of its failings. It also failed to offer any remedy or say how it had learnt from outcomes and so did not demonstrate these principles. In addition, it failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerability and its communication was poor. There was severe maladministration which caused significant inconvenience, frustration, distress, and time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord correctly acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its complaints policy timeframe. It was permitted under its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) to ask for an extension of time when it did. It then provided its stage 1 response within this timeframe and in compliance with its policy and the Code. However, when the resident asked to escalate her complaint, it failed to acknowledge this within its policy timeframe or at all. This was not in compliance with paragraph 6.11 of the Code.
  2. When the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond it failed to do so until after we sent a final request. It provided its stage 2 response 151 working days after the resident made her request to escalate. This was an unacceptable delay, which was not in compliance with its policy or paragraph 6.14 of the Code. The landlord also had failed to request an extension of time, as permitted under its policy and the Code, and as it had previously done. Positively, within its stage 2 response it apologised for its delay, although gave an incorrect date for her escalation request. It offered £95 compensation.
  3. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles as well as our own guidance on remedies. While it was positive the landlord apologised for its delay at stage 2, it failed to explain why it had happened or how it would prevent similar delays in future. Its compensation offer also did not reflect the additional inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to the resident. This amount is inclusive of the £95 it offered at stage 2.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information.
  2. The Ombudsman’s investigation has been hampered by a lack of and poor quality evidence. The landlord has failed to create, retain or provide:
    1. A full record of the stage 1 complaint including an accurate date on which it was made.
    2. Evidence of the resident’s escalation request.
    3. Evidence of its stage 1 extension of time request (provided by the resident).
    4. Complete repairs records detailing all inspections and attendances, including:
      1. Its initial inspection.
      2. Evidence it cleaned the guttering in July 2024 as it noted it had.
      3. Information regarding scaffolding, a quote or rejection reasons.
      4. Evidence of the issues it had with its contractors referred to in its stage 1 response.
  3. Additionally, its poor record keeping and repair records meant it believed it had completed the guttering repair when it had not, and it relied on this in its stage 1 response, which was a failing. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a roof leak, which caused damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,200 compensation made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the significant inconvenience, frustration, distress, and time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the leak, damp and mould.
      2. £200 (inclusive of its £95 stage 2 offer) for the inconvenience, frustration, and time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Carry out an inspection, by internal or external surveyor, of the inside of the property and draw up a schedule of repairs required following the period of water ingress. The schedule is also to include any remedial repairs for damage caused by damp and mould to the ceilings and walls.
    4. Appoint a named member of staff to oversee the survey, works ordered below, and communication with the resident. It is to provide their name and direct contact details to the resident.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out any repairs detailed in the surveyor’s report ordered above related to water ingress and damage caused by damp and mould. For the avoidance of doubt, this means repairs inside the property which would not ordinarily be the landlord’s responsibility, but for them being caused by a structural defect as per its repairs policy. The Ombudsman also considers it fair in all the circumstances for the landlord to complete these repairs.
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.