London Borough of Ealing (202451968)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground-floor 1-bedroom flat, located in a multi-storey block. In September 2023 she reported hearing water dripping in the bathroom from the communal stack pipe. She also said that this was causing black mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak and the associated damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak and the associated damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

A leak and the associated damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to act in line with its repair and damp and mould policies, resulting in over 17 months of delays, poor communication, and inadequate record-keeping.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord met its stage 1 timescales but failed to meet stage 2 deadlines, did not manage the delay appropriately, and demonstrated poor communication and record-keeping.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her health. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s repair policy assigns repairs a priority based on urgency. Emergency repairs will be completed within 4 hours. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when it first receives reports of damp and mould, diagnostic tools are used to triage cases. High-risk cases identified during the initial phone call are scheduled for inspection by a specialist contractor within 5 working days. The contractor conducts a risk assessment, considering both the occupants’ health and the severity of the damp.
9. The policy goes on to say that the landlord’s approach prioritises safety. For example, immediate risks are addressed by treating symptoms, and full remedial work is completed once a property is safe, within an agreed timeframe. In emergencies where a property is deemed uninhabitable, residents are moved to temporary accommodation until repairs are finished.
10. The repair records for this case, at times, were inconsistent or confusing, with no clear explanation of the actions taken. The absence of detailed documentation makes it difficult to understand the sequence of events, verify what work was carried out, and assess whether appropriate steps were followed.
11. On 1 September 2023 the resident reported a leak and the presence of damp and mould in the bathroom. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment during the triage stage, as required by its damp and mould policy. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the affected mould area was treated promptly to remove any immediate risk to the resident, in line with the landlord’s stated commitment to a “safety first” approach.
12. Nevertheless, a visit was carried out on 8 September 2023, which was within the landlord’s stated repair policy timescales. During this inspection, the contractor identified the need for follow-on works, including gaining access to neighbouring flats because the issue involved a communal stack pipe in boxed casing. The contractor’s notes confirm that attempts were made to access the relevant flats on the same day, but these were unsuccessful. This demonstrated a solution-focused and proactive approach at the time of inspection. The contractor sought to progress the repair promptly rather than delaying action. However, despite these efforts, the lack of successful access meant the issue could not be resolved immediately, requiring further coordination and follow-up by the landlord.
13. Despite being aware that access to other flats was required to complete the repair, there was no evidence that the landlord made any further attempts to contact the neighbouring properties after the initial visit. Instead, the resident was left to chase the landlord for updates, which she did on 29 September 2023. The repair logs show that the follow-on works were not formally recorded until 5 October 2023, indicating that action was only taken after the resident’s intervention.
14. This delay reflects a lack of proactive management and poor communication, which not only prolonged the resolution of the issue but also placed an unnecessary burden on the resident to seek updates.
15. Between October 2023 and April 2024, there was no evidence of any meaningful action taken by the landlord to progress the repairs or address the damp and mould issue. During this period, the case notes show that the resident chased the landlord for updates, as did the tenants of other neighbouring properties that were also affected by the communal stack pipe problem.
16. This prolonged inaction was inconsistent with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. The lack of progress for the repair over several months was a failure to adhere to the timescale outline in its repair policy. Such delays not only undermined the landlord’s stated obligations but also raise concerns about its ability to manage communal repairs effectively and maintain compliance with its own repair policy timescales.
17. On 16 May 2024, a Healthy Homes assessment was carried out. The assessment recorded a 50% moisture meter reading in the bathroom, multiple leaks from the communal stack pipe (encased in wooden boxing), and noted that the leak was now causing wet patches in the kitchen. It was not appropriate that the repair was not adequately addressed 8 months earlier when first identified by the landlord. The lack of timely intervention allowed the issue to deteriorate, as evidenced by the leak spreading beyond the bathroom and affecting the kitchen by May 2024. This prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience and caused further property damage, which could have been prevented with earlier, decisive action.
18. On 16 June 2024, the repair log shows that a damp and mould survey was raised. However, the case notes indicate that the landlord did not attempt to arrange this survey until 20 August 2024, more than 2 months later. The notes also record that during this attempt, the resident was described as “rude”, but there was no evidence that this impacted the scheduling of the survey.
19. A further works order was raised on 22 August 2024, instructing that the resident be contacted within 24 hours and the property attended within 3 working days. Despite these clear instructions, there was no evidence of any contact within the specified timeframe, demonstrating a failure to appropriately monitor and progress outstanding repairs.
20. Ultimately, the damp and mould survey was not completed until 18 March 2025, which was over 9 months after the initial repair log entry. This significant delay was unacceptable and represents a serious failure by the landlord to comply with its own damp and mould policy. The prolonged delays and lack of proactive action caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
21. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 18 October 2024, the landlord stated that it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in resolving the matter. It explained that its investigation began in August 2024, based on its records. This was inaccurate, as the issue had first been reported in September 2023, meaning the landlord failed to acknowledge or address the significant period of inaction prior to August 2024.
22. The landlord also claimed that its contractor had reported being unable to arrange an inspection due to the resident’s “rude” behaviour. However, the evidence shows this was not raised until August 2024 and therefore does not account for the delays that occurred between September 2023 and August 2024. Furthermore, even if such behaviour was reported, this should not have prevented the landlord from arranging the necessary repairs, as it remained obligated under its repair policy to ensure essential works were completed.
23. Additionally, despite acknowledging delays and partially upholding the complaint, the landlord did not offer any compensation. Given the length of time the leak and associated damp and mould issues had been ongoing, this was a missed opportunity to acknowledge the impact on the resident and put things right.
24. Internal correspondence dated 15 November 2024 shows that the landlord requested a copy of an inspection report because it was not available on its system. This represents a record keeping failure, which in turn prevented the landlord from effectively managing the repair to completion. Accurate and timely documentation is essential for tracking progress and ensuring outstanding repairs are monitored and managed effectively.
25. An additional visit was carried out on 5 December 2024, which again identified a leak on the communal stack pipe. This occurred over 15 months after the resident’s initial report in September 2023, highlighting the prolonged nature of the issue. Since the landlord’s records do not adequately evidence the completion of any previous works, this suggests that the leak was ongoing throughout this period, rather than being a reoccurring issue following repair attempts. The prolonged delays in addressing the leak and the persistent damp and mould were unfair and unreasonable for the resident, particularly given that she had been actively chasing the landlord throughout this period.
26. On 20 January 2025, the landlord raised a new works order for a damp and mould survey, which was marked as completed on 28 January 2025. This was confusing because an earlier works order for the same type of survey had already been raised on 16 June 2024 and was later recorded as completed on 3 March 2025. The duplication of works orders and inconsistent completion dates indicate poor record keeping and a lack of clarity in repair management processes. This does not appear to have been raised as part of ongoing monitoring of the previously identified damp and mould issue, which suggests a lack of proactive follow-up by the landlord, and failure to adhere to its damp and mould policy.
27. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that after raising a works order on 12 June 2024 for numerous leaks from the stack pipe and damp and mould, its contractor failed to complete the works. It further noted that additional works orders raised in October 2024 were also not attended to by its contractors. The landlord confirmed that the works were eventually completed on 23 January 2025, almost 17 months after the initial report.
28. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered the resident £250 compensation. While this was a positive step in recognising service failure, the amount was not proportionate to the impact of the delay, given the extended period during which the resident lived with unresolved leaks, damp, and mould. The landlord’s compensation policy requires consideration of the severity and duration of inconvenience caused. In this case, the prolonged delay and repeated failures to act should have warranted a higher level of redress to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
29. In conclusion, the landlord repeatedly failed to act in line with its own repair and damp and mould policies, resulting in significant delays, poor communication, and inadequate record keeping. These failures left the resident living with unresolved leaks and damp for over 17 months, causing considerable distress and inconvenience. While the landlord apologised and offered compensation, which has prevented a finding of severe maladministration, the amount did not reflect the severity or duration of the impact.
30. We have awarded compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says there was failure which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. This is also in line with our remedies guidance.

31. The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. At stage 1, a written decision will be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement (up to 15 days from receipt). At stage 2, a written response will be provided within 20 working days of the stage 2 acknowledgement (up to 25 days from escalation).
32. The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 October 2024, confirming that the complaint was raised on 3 October 2024. We have not seen a copy of the original complaint, which represents a record keeping failure. However, the acknowledgement was sent within 4 working days, in line with its policy.
33. The stage 1 response was issued on 18 October 2024, 11 working days after receipt, which was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
34. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 14 November 2024. However, we have not seen a copy of the escalation request or confirmation of the date the request was made. Therefore, we cannot confirm whether acknowledgement was within the required 5 working days. The acknowledgement stated that the stage 2 response would be provided by 11 December 2024.
35. However, instead, the stage 2 response was sent on 29 January 2025. This was 51 working days after acknowledgement and significantly outside the policy timescale. The landlord did not provide evidence that it sought an extension or informed the resident in advance of the delay. Furthermore, the response failed to acknowledge the delay, or offer an apology or redress for it, which was not appropriate.
36. In summary, while the landlord met its timescales for acknowledgement and stage 1 response, it failed to comply with its stage 2 policy timeframe and did not manage the delay appropriately. The lack of communication, apology, or redress, combined with poor record keeping, represents several failures.
37. We have awarded compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for circumstances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but no permanent impact. As before, this also reflects our remedies guidance.

Learning

38. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

39. It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding monitoring outstanding repairs and clearly confirming their completion. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.
40. The landlord did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the urgency associated with damp and mould issues. Our spotlight report on damp and mould can assist with this.

Communication

41. The delays in complaint handling indicate that the landlord did not fully adhere to its own policy, and so improvements are needed in ensuring timely communication and strict adherence to procedural deadlines. Our Complaint Handling Code will help the landlord to improve the quality of its complaint communications.