London Borough of Ealing (202514153)

Background

1. The resident has arthritis and her son is autistic. She reported damp and mould caused by ongoing roof leaks in April 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the:
   1. The resident’s reports of a roof leak causing damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of creaking floorboards.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak causing damp and mould.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of creaking floorboards.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord significantly delayed resolving the roof leaks. It failed to effectively oversee works in line with its repairs process and consider the potential ongoing risk to the resident. It acknowledged communication problems with the resident but has not shown it took appropriate action to resolve these.
6. The landlord failed to properly address the resident’s concerns about her floorboards and dismissed the concern without evidence of an appropriate inspection.
7. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with the timescales of the Complaint Handling Code. The resident had to seek support to raise her complaint.

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.

8. The resident told us that the living conditions affected her mental and physical health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are more appropriate to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. We note that the resident has said leaks began in 2019. The landlord acknowledged this had been ongoing for several years, though it undertook relevant major works in 2024. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from April 2025 onwards that the landlord considered in its compliant responses, though we may reference previous issues for context. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion.
10. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it will attend leaking roofs within 4 hours and prioritise the needs of vulnerable residents. Its damp and mould policy says it will always make and keep the property safe and do a monthly report to update progress with a risk rating and issues log. Its self-assessment says it will apply its decant policy where it is not possible to resolve the fault. It will have a specialist contractor inspect within 5 working days and carry out a risk assessment.
11. In April 2025 the landlord raised a repair to trace a leak it said had been ongoing for 2-3 years and a damp and mould inspection. Its independent specialist contractor conducted a detailed damp and mould inspection within 5 days in May 2025. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. They identified a potential roof leak and advised the landlord it would need scaffolding for a roof repair before it could complete internal repairs to the walls and ceiling. They completed a risk assessment and said there may be a risk to health if the landlord did not complete the repairs. They treated mould at the visit. This was a reasonable initial response and in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
12. The landlord visited the property to inspect the roof leak in June 2025. This was well outside of its target to attend roof leaks within 4 hours. During that period, the resident contacted the landlord for an update and raised concerns for her family’s health. The inspection noted multiple potential leaks and the need for a roof inspection. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property as it had already raised a roofing repair. It resurfaced the lounge bay window in June 2025, addressing one cause of the leak. It has not provided evidence to clarify why it did not address the other noted leaks at this time.
13. Later in June 2025 the landlord tried to arrange a combined visit with the roofer and surveyor but noted the resident hung up and then left abusive voicemails. In July 2025 it had banned the resident from contacting the repairs team directly. It is unclear if, or how, it communicated this to the resident at the time and what communication plan it put in place for her instead. Whilst it is within the landlord’s rights to establish a set communication plan, it does not appear to have communicated this clearly to the resident. This was unreasonable.
14. In July 2025 we forwarded a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. It raised a roof inspection and repairs to fix the flat roof and rake out the pointing around the chimney. It has confirmed it has not yet completed this work. This was unreasonable and means there was a significant delay. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged it had only partially resolved the leaks and the inspection in June 2025 had raised further suspected faults for which it had ordered repairs. It said that, once it had fixed the leaks, it would complete the necessary internal repairs caused by the damp.
15. In August 2025 the contractor attended to complete the work raised by the landlord but found the work was more extensive than planned and required scaffolding. The resident escalated this part of her complaint in October 2025, saying they had completed no further work, and she had not heard from the landlord. This was unreasonable. The landlord has provided no evidence it conducted monthly progress reports with risk ratings to effectively oversee and manage the repairs in line with its repairs handbook. It also showed no further consideration of interim measures or the household vulnerabilities. This was again unreasonable and not in line with its repairs handbook.
16. The landlord said in November 2025 that a surveyor had arranged a visit with the resident, but she had refused access. It agreed it would continue based on the previous inspection and, once scaffolding was in place, it would complete the work as a priority and keep the resident updated. This was a reasonable plan to move the repairs forward.
17. In December 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 response explaining its system had not received the contractors update that they could not complete the work from its August 2025 visit. It offered compensation of £140 based on £10 per week for the 14 weeks delay. This was inappropriate and not reflective of the landlord’s compensation policy which does not reference this method of calculation and instead reflects our remedies guidance, which was relevant at the time.
18. The landlord’s compensation offer also did not reflect that the issue was ongoing 32 weeks after she had reported it, despite inspections in May and June 2025 noting multiple leaks and the need for scaffolding. It also failed to fully cover the impact the failure had on the resident. Had it conducted its monthly damp and mould reviews in line with its policy, it may have been aware of the issue sooner and shown a consideration of regular mould washes during the delay. Whilst it was reasonable to plan internal repairs once it resolved the leak, it showed no consideration of ways to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould in the meantime.
19. The landlord has told us they expect to complete the roofing work (raised in July 2025) in April 2026. It has noted it has not currently taken any action to raise the internal works. Should this roofing repair be successful, it will have taken a year after the resident reported the matter.
20. Whilst we understand the landlord has already undertaken significant works previously to the roof and leaks can be difficult to trace, sometimes needing a trial and error approach, this delay was unreasonable. Though it has taken over a year to date to complete the works from its April 2025 order, it partly mitigated this by raising and completing some related orders and we recognise there were communication problems with the resident during the timeline.
21. However, the landlord failed to show adequate oversight of the repairs process, with no evidence of monthly progress reports or risk assessments. It has also provided no evidence it took action to tackle the communication problems appropriately by creating a communication plan or setting reasonable timescales for the internal and external work. We have ordered the landlord to start works and provide a clear schedule of works for all related internal and external repairs with timeframes. We have also ordered compensation of £600 in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on the resident.

22. It is unclear when the resident first reported creaking floorboards but she confirmed she was concerned this was a structural issue in her complaint in July 2025.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response in July 2025 said her floor was timber and by nature flexible and prone to creaking. It said she could lessen this with carpet and underlay and that it saw no record of significant creaking on its recent visit. This was unreasonable as its detailed property inspection in June 2025 makes no reference to the flooring. It would have been appropriate to offer to visit and inspect the flooring given the lack of evidence that it had already done so.
24. In July 2025 the resident escalated her complaint as she disagreed and said she had raised the floor issue repeatedly and wanted a thorough inspection. The landlord did not recognise this escalation and her escalation requests in October 2025 did not reference the floor creaking explicitly. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 2 response in December 2025.
25. We find service failure on the basis the landlord has no record of a proper assessment of the flooring. We have ordered the landlord to inspect the flooring and pay compensation of £50 in line with its compensation policy for service failures with a limited impact.

26. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
27. The landlord sent its stage 1 response within 7 working days. The resident emailed in July 2025, stating she was unhappy with part of its response. It did not treat this as an escalation, and this was unreasonable. She escalated it again on 23 October 2025 and via a councillor on 29 October 2025. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 30 days later. This was an unreasonable delay and caused the resident further time and trouble in seeking support from a councillor to escalate her complaint. As mentioned above, despite that delay, the landlord also failed to address her floorboard concerns in its stage 2 response.
28. The landlord did not demonstrate adequate oversight of its follow up actions during the complaint process and failed to recognise the original complaint escalation. We have ordered compensation of £100 in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failings that had an adverse impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord showed good practice in capturing detailed and comprehensive information through its record‑keeping systems. However, weak monitoring and review processes undermined this. Despite having sufficient information available to track progress, and ensure timely resolutions, the landlord did not adequately follow up on issues or use the data effectively to drive action. This gap meant that it did not address the risks and ongoing problems promptly, reducing the effectiveness of otherwise strong reporting. The landlord should learn from this to ensure that robust monitoring arrangements sit alongside good information management, so that detailed records translate into meaningful oversight, timely interventions, and improved outcomes for residents.

Communication

30. The landlord should recognise that while it has a responsibility to protect its staff through clear and robust policies addressing unacceptable behaviour, it must also ensure that these measures do not impede the resident’s access to essential services. The landlord prohibited the resident from contacting the repairs team without providing clear or adequate information about alternative communication routes, despite the presence of ongoing repairs that required active management. This contributed to confusion and hindered the resident’s ability to engage effectively with the repairs process. The landlord should ensure it applies any communication restrictions proportionately, clearly explains them to the resident, and provides practical guidance so the resident can continue to receive the service they are entitled to.