London Borough of Ealing (202520683)

Background

1. The resident and his mother are joint leaseholders. She lives at the property alone and has chronic health conditions known to the landlord. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and his mother are referred to as “the resident.” The resident complained to the landlord about delays in completing repairs to address damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord acknowledged delays to carry out repair work. However, it did not fully resolve the issue for over 2 years after the initial report. This meant the redress it offered was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident.

The complaint

5. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling that it did not acknowledge, apologise or offer redress for.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident raised concerns about the affect of the damp and mould on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. When this is the case, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, offer to complete the repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
8. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in her bedrooms was not in line with its damp and mould policy. It attended to inspect the issue 10 working days after her report. Given the resident is elderly and has health concerns it should have classed the case as high risk and attended within 5 working days. It carried out a mould wash to the affected areas of the bedroom walls and identified repair work to repair cracks in external walls. It needed to carry out further investigation to identify the cause of the issue. It suggested tracing a possible leak from the upstairs property and investigating if the damp proof course (DPC) had failed.
9. The landlord did not agree a timescale with the resident in which it would return and complete the repair work identified in its inspection or carry out further investigations. This was not in line with its policy and led to her chasing it for this information, causing avoidable time and trouble. It was not proactive with its communication and often failed to respond to her contact which likely left her feeling frustrated and ignored. Its poor communication also contributed to prolonged delays in it resolving the matter.
10. While the landlord provided some information about the actions it took to investigate the damp and mould, it did not provide a clear or complete chronology. Furthermore, there were unreasonable gaps in between recorded actions, indicating a lack of urgency or oversight. The limited records meant we could not assess whether any delays were avoidable.
11. While chasing the landlord’s attendance in February 2024 the resident told it she was disabled and concerned about the affect of the matter on her health. Due to this, it should have conducted a risk assessment in line with its policy. There is no evidence that it did so at any point in this case, despite her repeatedly reporting that the issue was affecting her health. As a result, it failed to ensure its response was proportionate.
12. The landlord raised a works order to address the repairs it had identified 4 weeks after its inspection. It is not clear what caused this delay. It attended to carry out repair work 24 working days later than its published timescale for a routine repair. It was unable to complete repair work due to weather conditions and could not investigate the possible leak because the neighbour was away. There is no evidence that it returned to investigate this.
13. Between August 2024 and September 2025, the landlord carried out five further inspections. These identified a range of repairs and possible causes of the issue. While damp and mould cases often require multiple visits, it did not demonstrate that it scheduled any remedial works during this period. This likely frustrated the resident, who repeatedly provided access without any resulting action. By the time of its final complaint response, 20 months had passed since the original report, yet the landlord had not scheduled remedial works.
14. As part of his complaint the resident told the landlord that the property had to be redecorated twice in 2024 due to the damp and mould. He wanted it to reimburse him for the cost of this. It failed to address this point in its complaint responses and there is no evidence that it directed him to its liability insurer. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.
15. It was reasonable that the landlord set out in its complaint responses that it was unable to transfer the freehold to the leaseholders as requested by the resident. It explained that this was a separate legal process not facilitated through its complaint process. It also said it was unable to reimburse service charges paid but would instead consider compensation based on its identified service failings. This was in line with its complaints policy.
16. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays in administering the Section 20 process. It recognised the affect of these delays by offering to expedite the process through urgently arranged quotations. However, it failed to provide a timescale, missing an opportunity to provide the resident with a clear, measurable plan.
17. Overall, the landlord failed to provide clear, timely, and consistent updates to the resident. It also failed to handle the matter in line with the timescales set out in its repairs and damp and mould policies or evidence that it considered whether the property was safe. Although its complaint responses acknowledged some failings it did not demonstrate it had assessed its actions against its policies within them.
18. The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation to acknowledge its failings up to 5 September 2025. However, after issuing its final response it has not demonstrated that it has resolved the matter. As a result, we found its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays and detriment the resident experienced with the matter continuing for over 2 years. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered additional compensation of £200 and specific actions to resolve the outstanding matter, consistent with our principles of fairness and putting things right.
19. After the landlord issued its final response, the resident raised concerns that it had not identified the root cause of the damp and mould. Its contractors attended in December 2025 to complete repairs agreed through the Section 20 process. During the works, they identified possible drainage issues requiring further investigation. The evidence shows conflicting opinions on the cause of the damp and mould. As a result, we have ordered an independent damp and mould survey to identify the definitive cause and set out the necessary remedial works.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
21. There were delays in the landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint at both stages. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1, 2 working days later than its published timescale of 5 working days. At stage 2 its acknowledgment was 19 working days late. This also meant its stage 1 and 2 responses were also delayed due to its late acknowledgments. That said, it provided its stage 1 and 2 responses within the 10 and 20 working day timescales following its acknowledgment at each stage. It did not acknowledge these delays in its complaint responses.
22. The Code requires landlords to address all complaint points, provide clear reasons for decisions, and set out any outstanding actions. Although the landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1, it failed to adequately address all the resident’s concerns or provide timescales for next steps. It also did not meaningfully engage with some of the issues that had contributed to delays, referring only briefly to its Section 20 process without providing clarification on identified failings.
23. Given the identified failings we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for it to pay £50 compensation to recognise the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

24. Where residents raise safety concerns and health vulnerabilities, landlords should assess whether a risk assessment is required.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. Good record keeping allows landlords to know and understand is assets generally, and what inspections have uncovered. It ensures that repairs and works are managed effectively without the need for repeat reports or unreasonable delays. In this case, there were times the landlord was unaware of repairs and inspections, perhaps due to record keeping. A clear guide or strategy for repairs teams and operatives is likely to ensure contractors know what to record and that landlords can access it. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

26. The landlord did not evidence effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It may wish to consider our free Centre for Learning and review our training videos for landlords on the importance of clear communication.