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

London Borough of Enfield (202331405)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331405

London Borough of Enfield

25 July 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request to be rehoused.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. At the time of the complaint, she was living in a 2-bedroom flat with her 3 children. She has since moved to a different property.
  2. The resident has intermittently reported damp and mould in the property since 16 September 2021. She requested to be rehoused on 17 February 2023 as she did not feel safe in the property due to damp and mould and overcrowding. The repair records show the landlord attended on 27 February 2023.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 20 April 2023. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not notified her of an appointment that day, so she was unable to provide access. She spoke to a staff member about the issue, who she said was rude and condescending. She also asked for the findings from the appointment on 27 February 2023.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 19 May 2023, the landlord apologised that it did not notify the resident of the appointments on 28 February 2023 and 20 April 2023 regarding damp and mould. It said it had reattended on 2 May 2023 and 11 May 2023 at the resident’s request but she was not at home. It added it had booked a new appointment for 8 June 2023. It said it recognised that the call was not handled with effective customer service, which it apologised for. The landlord also explained it had referred the resident to the relevant team to handle her housing transfer request, and it signposted her to alternative rehousing options.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 May 2023. She said she rescheduled the appointment on 2 May 2023, and she was at the property on 11 May 2023, other than to complete the school run which she had previously notified the landlord of. She added she had not received any updates regarding her transfer request since completing a transfer form in 2021.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 22 June 2023. It said it would meet with the resident to discuss rehousing options. It explained it could take a considerable time to transfer her due to the demand for housing and waiting lists. It said it had completed a mould wash, but the resident remained dissatisfied as the issue impacted the property less in the summer months. The landlord said that, as part of its new approach to damp and mould cases, it would complete a follow-on inspection and any remedial works before 3 August 2023. It explained it would continue to monitor the issue until it identified and rectified the root cause. It partially upheld the complaint as it did not correctly follow-up her rehousing request.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman on 28 November 2023 as the damp and mould issue was unresolved. She said the issue was impacting her family’s health. She added the property was overcrowded. She asked for assistance to move.
  8. Following the completion of the complaint process, the landlord told us the resident moved out of the property in March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about overcrowding in the property and the landlord’s transfer list. The assessment of housing needs and the application of a council’s housing allocation policy, concerns its actions as a local authority. As a result, such complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO for assistance with her complaint about this matter. Nonetheless, we will consider more generally how it handled her transfer request in respect of the property condition.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request to be rehoused

  1. The landlord’s Housing Repairs, Maintenance and Planned Works Policy states that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, the services, and some of the fittings. The policy states no tenant should live in damp conditions. This policy included a revised process for dealing with damp, mould, and condensation. This says it will raise a survey within 21 days when a resident reports damp and mould and then discuss the findings with the resident and raise any necessary works. It says it will complete a follow-up check 8 weeks after the repair to ensure it has resolved the issue, and complete further investigation if necessary.
  2. The repairs policy states the landlord will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours; urgent repairs, which it defines as “repairs that may cause discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to you or a third party”, within 5 working days; and routine repairs within 30 calendar days.
  3. The evidence suggests the resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 16 September 2021. The landlord raised a job for a mould wash and completed this on 1 October 2021. There is no evidence the resident made further reports of damp and mould until she contacted her councillor on 17 February 2023 regarding numerous repair issues including damp and mould. The landlord attended on 27 February 2023, which was within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy.
  4. However, the repair records do not provide details of the outcome of the appointment. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have completed a survey within 21 days, and it is unclear whether it did or not. In her complaint, the resident asked for the findings of the appointment, but the landlord did not recognise or respond to this element of the complaint. It therefore failed to manage her expectations or demonstrate that it completed all necessary actions to resolve the damp and mould in full.
  5. The landlord attended to complete a mould wash on 28 February 2023. It was good practice to reattend so quickly to improve the resident’s living conditions. However, the repair records show the resident was unaware of the appointment, so it was rebooked for 20 April 2023. It is vital that landlord’s notify residents prior to appointments to ensure the date is suitable for them to provide access. Failure to do so can have a detrimental impact on the landlord-tenant relationship and result in wasted appointments. Furthermore, the landlord should have prioritised the follow-on appointment to prevent further delays.
  6. Following this, the landlord was unable to gain access on 21 and 26 April, 2 and 11 May 2023. In its complaint response, the landlord noted that the resident was aware of the latter 2 appointments but was not at home. The repair records also show that it notified her of the 26 April 2023 appointment. However, the resident advised she rescheduled the appointment on 2 May 2023 as there was a school strike, and the landlord advised the children should not be in the property during the appointment due to use of chemicals. Nonetheless, this delay was still outside of the landlord’s control. She also said that she advised the landlord to avoid school run times on 11 May 2023, but it failed to do so which resulted in a missed appointment. The landlord should ensure it correctly records resident’s requests and accommodates where possible to prevent missed appointments.
  7. In her complaint, the resident said when she called to discuss the issue of repeated no notice of appointments the staff member was condescending and rude. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised it did not offer effective or professional customer service and apologised. It was appropriate that it learned from the complaint and said it used the feedback to improve its service.
  8. The landlord subsequently completed a mould wash and stain block on 8 June 2023. This was 75 working days following the resident’s initial report. This meant the resident experienced a prolonged period of damp and mould in the property. While the landlord was not responsible for the full extent, its poor communication when arranging appointments contributed to the delays.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted the resident was concerned that the mould would return in the winter months as it had only completed a mould wash. The landlord explained that in line with its new approach to damp and mould it would complete a follow-on inspection and any additional necessary remedial works before 3 August 2023. It would also continue to monitor the situation until it identified the root cause of the problem. While this approach was pragmatic, it is unclear why it did not complete a thorough inspection and act on the findings at the time of the initial report. Its failure to do so meant it did not act in line with its repairs policy. This would have assured the resident that it had taken all reasonable steps to address the damp and mould and alleviate her concerns that the issue was going to recur.
  10. The landlord called the resident on 29 August 2023 to carry out the 8-week mould checks but was unable to reach her so left a voicemail advising to call if the mould issue was ongoing. This was slightly outside of the landlord’s agreed timeframe at stage 2. However, there is no evidence that the resident reported a recurrence of the damp and mould in the interim, so it does not appear there was an adverse impact. It subsequently attended on 1 September 2023 and 11 September 2023 but was unable to gain access. As it had been unable to contact the resident to arrange an appointment, it was a practical step to visit the property in attempt to complete the inspection. It is unclear whether it left a calling card, which would have been appropriate to ensure the resident was aware it had attended and had the necessary information to rebook the appointment.
  11. As part of her complaint, the resident asked to be rehoused. It is understood that one of the reasons for the resident requesting a property move is due to the ongoing repair issues. The landlord is obliged to complete the repairs, rather than move the resident. Due to additional concerns regarding overcrowding and the impact on the resident’s health, it was reasonable that the landlord referred her to the housing options panel. It was also appropriate that the landlord referred her to alternative rehousing options as it explained that securing a house move might take some time. It was appropriate that the landlord identified that it had not provided her with sufficient updates on the process to manage her expectations.
  12. Following the completion of the complaint process, there is no evidence the resident further reported any damp and mould issues until 6 December 2023. She said the mould washes only provided a temporary resolution, and she requested the landlord to take immediate action as the issue was impacting her children’s health. The landlord inspected on 12 January 2024. She was then rehoused on 11 March 2024. This ultimately resolved the issues in full.
  13. Although the landlord recognised its shortcomings, it did not offer any redress. The complaint is therefore unresolved. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, compensation is appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failings had an adverse impact on the resident. When considering compensation, we also consider any aggravating factors (such as vulnerabilities) which may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the household members.
  14. In this case, the landlord recognised that it failed to provide prior notice of all appointments, there was an instance of poor customer service, and it did not provide sufficient updates regarding the transfer process. This led to delays in addressing the damp and mould and had a detrimental impact on the landlord-tenant relationship. Further to this it also failed to complete a damp and mould inspection following the resident’s initial report, which caused the resident additional distress and worry that the damp and mould would recur.
  15. In line with our remedies guidance, compensation of £300 is appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident and her family. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the household (young children) which meant the delay in treating the damp and mould would have had a more severe effect compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident £300 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request to be rehoused. It must provide the Service of evidence of the payment within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of repairs to ensure that it has sufficient processes in place to notify residents of appointments.