London Borough of Ealing (202444290)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of the building. The resident has informed the landlord of her daughter’s vulnerabilities. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 16 January 2025 and had raised concerns about mould in the property.

  What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. reports of a leak coming into the property.
   2. reports of mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint and its record keeping.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its response to reports of a leak.
   2. maladministration in response to reports of mould.
   3. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.
   4. maladministration in its record keeping.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not respond to the report of a leak, or complete the repairs associated with the leak, within its repair timescales. It did not communicate with the resident about the repairs or about the potential presence of asbestos in her property.
6. The landlord arranged for the resident’s property to be inspected for mould multiple times and offered solutions in line with its policy. However, it did not communicate with the resident in line with its policy and did not complete repairs within its timescales.
7. The landlord did not respond to all of the residents concerns and its complaint response was delayed. Its record keeping throughout the complaint was not reasonable.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 16 January 2025. We understand the landlord fixed the leak on 4 February 2025. The leak was fixed 19 days after the landlord reported it. The landlord’s repairs policy says an emergency repair is where an issue could adversely affect the structure of a property. Its repairs handbook says a major leak or burst pipe should be made safe within 4 hours. It says routine repairs should be completed within 28 working days.
9. The landlord’s repair records show that the leak was affecting multiple flats in the building and the cause of the leak was a bath shower mixer that had snapped in the flat above. Given that the leak affected several households, it would be more likely to it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated this as an emergency repair and tried to make it safe within 4 hours. The landlord did try and fix the leak on 21 January 2025. However it could not access the property where the leak was coming from. Nevertheless, this was still 5 days after the leak was reported to it and the landlord took 14 days after that to stop the leak. The landlord failed to follow its policy when responding to the leak.
10. A contractor attended the residents property on 12 February 2025 and logged a repair to the bathroom ceiling. They noted the ceiling would need to be tested for asbestos. The contractor informed the resident of this and the resident then regularly asked the landlord for an update on whether asbestos was in her property. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update. Its repairs policy says that it will engage with resident’s regarding repairs. It is clear the resident was concerned about the presence of asbestos. There is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident about this, the landlord did not act appropriately because it failed to follow its repairs policy here.
11. The repairs to the ceiling were completed on 25 April 2025. It took the landlord 50 working days to finish the repair from when the contractor attended the resident’s property on 12 February 2025. A contractor did come to the resident’s property on 21 February to complete the repair, but noted they could not do this before the asbestos survey was completed. While it is understandable that the presence of asbestos may delay the repair, the landlord completed the repair before it had tested for asbestos. So, it cannot be said that the asbestos was the reason for the delay. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy which says these repairs should have been completed in 28 calendar days.
12. The landlord failed to follow its policy in responding and stopping the leak in time. It did not follow its policy on repairing the damage after the leak either. There is no evidence that all of the repairs had been completed at the time of this investigation. The landlord should have engaged with the resident about the repairs, in particular due to the resident’s concerns about asbestos potentially being in the property.
13. These failings likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The resident has mentioned that due to the leak her and her family were unable to use the bathroom fully. The landlord did not recognise any of these failings in its complaint responses. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation to the resident. Had the landlord acted appropriately, we consider it should have taken a maximum of 6 weeks to resolve the leak and complete the follow on repairs. This is made up of 28 days (for a routine repair for the follow on works) plus 2 weeks to allow for the asbestos survey. The landlord took over 11 weeks. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation would be £200. This sum reflects that there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact.
14. The resident has informed us that asbestos has been identified in her property. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to write to the resident with information and advice as outlined in its asbestos policy, if it has not done so already.

15. On 2 February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord and requested that she was moved due to mould in the property. She had health concerns about herself and her daughter, who has asthma. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed these concerns with the resident. The policy says if a member of a household has medical problems that could be exacerbated by mould then it will make itself available to advise a resident on the type of medical evidence it requires. There is no evidence that the landlord took these actions. The landlord failed to follow its policy here.
16. Before the resident’s above email, the landlord had arranged for a contractor to visit the resident’s property on 11 February 2025 to conduct a damp and mould inspection. The contractor said the kitchen worktop and sealant around the bath needed replacing. The contactor also treated the mould and provided practical advice on mould prevention. They concluded that this advice should be enough to contain the mould. No further action was taken by the landlord. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinion of an expert in these situations. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its policy for these situations.
17. The resident raised further concerns about mould in her stage 2 escalation and in an email on 18 February 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord responded immediately to these concerns. However, it did carry out another damp and mould survey on 24 March 2025. This was a reasonable step to address the resident’s concerns.
18. The surveyor flagged the same repairs as the report on 11 February 2025. A clean and shield of affected areas was completed which was appropriate action to take to remove the mould and clean the affected areas. The report concluded there was no risk to the health of the residents. It would have been good customer service, given the resident’s concerns, for the landlord to have reassured her at that point about the condition of the property.
19. In relation to the follow-on works following this survey, the landlord renewed the sealant surrounding the bath on 25 April 2025. This was over two months from when the repair was raised. There is no evidence that the kitchen worktop has been replaced. The landlord did not complete these repairs in line with its policy. We have made an order for the landlord to replace the kitchen worktop, if it has not done so already.
20. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about mould was mixed. It took a proactive approach in arranging for inspections to take place. It did this consistently, arranging for an inspection soon after another one. In fact, the landlord arranged a further inspection after the complaints process had ended on 28 July 2025. This showed mould was improving at the property, though there were still some recommendations for further repairs to assist with managing it. This shows the landlord continued to check for mould and assess how it could help in tackling it. It was reasonable for it to rely on its experts. These actions were in line with its policy for tackling damp and mould and show it taking a safety first approach.
21. However, the landlord did not build on its proactive approach. It missed opportunities to communicate with the resident and reassure them of the actions being taken to tackle mould in the property. This impacted on its relationship with the resident as she was left frustrated by what she saw as a lack of action from the landlord. The resident was concerned for her own health and her daughter’s. The lack of communication increased this worry. We consider it reasonable to say that clear communication on a plan to tackle the mould would have reassured the resident about the condition of her property. Not addressing these concerns around vulnerabilities, raised by both the resident and its surveyor, was a failure of the landlord to follow its Damp and Mould Policy. Alongside this, the landlord also failed to complete the repairs recommended within its timescales. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
22. The resident has complained that damp and mould has affected her health and that of her daughter. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. She could seek independent advice regarding this or consider a claim through the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord.
23. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £200 is appropriate for the landlord’s communication failures specifically relating to her concerns about mould and the health of the household and for the delay in completing repairs following the survey of February 2025.

24. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 10 working days (acknowledgement 27 January 2025 to response 10 February 2025). This was compliant with the Code.
25. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint in 35 working days (acknowledgement 14 February 2025 to response 4 April 2025). The landlord did not address the delay with the resident. This was not compliant with the Code.
26. Between the stage 1 and 2 complaint, the resident complained about a further leak in her bathroom on 9 March 2025 and 17 March 2025. She also mentioned a series of issues she has had since moving into the property. There is no evidence the landlord addressed either of these points. The Code says if an additional complaint is raised during the investigation it should be incorporated into the landlord’s response or a new complaint should be raised. There is no evidence the landlord took either of these actions. The landlord failed to follow the Code here.
27. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its timescales and did not respond to all of her concerns. This resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delay and because the landlord was not addressing all the concerns that she raised. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation for the inconvenience caused is £100.

28. The landlord’s record keeping throughout the complaint process was poor. This has been mentioned but not directly addressed in the above sections and so is summed up here. The landlord did not provide us with:
    1. a record of when the leak was stopped. Its records show that someone attended to look at the leak on 4 February 2025, but the record does not say the leak was stopped. This led to a contractor attending the resident’s property on 12 February 2025 to stop the leak when it had already been stopped.
    2. a record of when the resident submitted her stage 1 and stage 2 complaint.
    3. a record of when the resident first complained to it about mould in the property.
    4. communication sent to it by the resident. The resident has sent us emails that she sent to the landlord, so it is reasonable to say the landlord should have a record of these emails.
    5. Aside from communications confirming appointments, complaint responses and acknowledgements, the landlord has not provided any communications that it sent to the resident.
29. We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and response to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. It also affects our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. We therefore have found a separate failing by the landlord because of its record keeping.
30. We have ordered the landlord to review its record-keeping to ensure all relevant repairs information is captured effectively; and that its communication with residents is also retained appropriately on its systems.