London Borough of Enfield (202412571)

Decision
Case ID	202412571
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Enfield
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

1. The resident moved to the property in October 2023. The property is a ground floor flat in a small block of four flats. The resident raised a complaint as she was unhappy that damp and mould issues were unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. A request for additional security features.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. A request for additional security features.
   3. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

4. Duplicate inspections caused delays in completing the required repairs. The works were not raised promptly, and the damp and mould issue remained unresolved after stage 2.

The landlord’s handling of the request for additional security features

5. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s request for additional security features. It did not explain if it was able to provide additional security.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaints in line with its complaint policy. However, it failed to address all the resident’s complaint points appropriately.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 14 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £150 for failings identified in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould £100 for failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the request for additional security features. £50 for failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. £100 already awarded at stage 2. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 14 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 September 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She said there was a crack on the ceiling running from the bathroom to the kitchen that made her scared for her safety. She also said there was damp and mould in her bathroom and bedroom and raised concerns about the communal areas. She said there were no buzzers, gates or CCTV and this was making her feel unsafe. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issues or rehouse her.
10 October 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said it had raised jobs in relation to the ceiling and damp and mould; however, it had made 5 visits and at all appointments had been unable to access the property, so it had made no progress. It had rescheduled an inspection for 14 October 2024 but warned it may charge the tenant if she did not allow access again. It also said it had referred the resident’s rehousing request to its housing management team.
29 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She told the landlord the mould in the property was affecting her health and that no one had contacted her about her rehousing options.
29 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said that its staff were assisting the resident in competing an application for a move on medical grounds. When the case was prepared it would be heard at the housing options panel. It apologised that the mould had returned to the property. It arranged an inspection for 5 December 2024 and awarded £100 compensation for the time, trouble and distress caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us. She wanted us to investigate how the landlord handled her reports of damp and mould and requests for additional security, and if it had done so fairly.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

7. On 24 September 2024 the resident said there was and ongoing problem damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom. She wanted the issue resolved or for the landlord to rehouse her. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will arrange a survey following reports of damp and mould within 21 days.
8. In its stage 1 response on 10 October 2024, the landlord said that it had scheduled the inspection for 14 October 2024. This was appropriate and within the 21 day target stated in its policy. It noted there had been previous issues with access to the property and advised it may recharge the resident if she failed to attend the appointment.
9. The landlord noted that it attended the property to complete the inspection on 14, 17 and 23 October 2024. On all three visits it said the resident was not in to allow access and had not answered her phone. The resident disputed this and said she was home, but no one had attended. The appointment was rescheduled for 30 October 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to make repeated attempts to access the property to carry out the inspection.
10. The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 30 October 2024. It found that a leak had caused damage to an external wall which would need re-pointing and there were internal works, like stain blocking, that would need completing.
11. The landlord completed stain blocking in the property on 1 November 2024. On the same day, it raised a job to clean the external wall of moss, which would need doing before it could repoint the wall. This was completed on 20 November 2024. Both jobs were categorised as routine and completed within 30 days in line with its repair policy.
12. In its stage 2 response on 29 November 2024, the landlord acknowledged the issue was affecting the resident’s health and explained it had supported her to apply for a move on medical grounds. This was reasonable and showed the landlord took the matter seriously.
13. In the response the landlord acknowledged the distress, time and trouble caused due to unsolved repairs and awarded the resident £100 compensation. This was an appropriate response and the amount in line with its compensation policy, which recommends £100 for service failures that affect the resident. 
14. The landlord also said it was sorry the damp and mould had returned. However, we have seen no evidence to confirm the issue had been resolved prior to this response. Some works had been completed but others remained outstanding, such as repointing the external wall. It said it had scheduled another inspection for 5 December 2024 and it would then arrange for any work to be completed.
15. Following the inspection two further jobs were raised on 9 December 2024; to re-point cracks on an external wall and stain blocking internally. The previous inspection on 30 October 2024 had already identified these works and it was unclear why the re-pointing work was not raised after the landlord cleaned the wall on 20 November 2024. This was an unnecessary delay.
16. The duplication of inspections was time-consuming and suggests poor record keeping and inadequate monitoring of repairs progress. The landlord’s repairs policy says after a survey has been competed for damp and mould, it will monitor works through to completion but its records were not consistent with this.
17. On 8 January 2025 the resident was approved for an alternative property. This shows the landlord followed through on the commitments made in its stage 2 response and had progressed the resident’s rehousing application.
18. Through the complaints process, the resident told the landlord that damp and mould affected her health and damaged her furniture. Its policy does not cover compensation for personal liability claims, so it was appropriate for the landlord to advise her to complete a liability form. The resident submitted the form and evidence, and the claim progressed. In March 2025, she received £600 for a damaged sofa and £2,000 for personal injury.  We have not considered these matters as personal injury claims are matters for the court process.
19. The landlord showed that work, such as repointing and stain blocking, was completed between January and April 2025, but the issue remained unresolved when the resident was permanently rehoused on 21 April 2025. While the landlord had not remedied the damp and mould, it was positive that it found a permanent solution the resident’s complaint.
20. Overall, while access issues may have caused initial delays, the landlord contributed to further delays by requesting another inspection when works from the previous inspection had not yet been completed. While the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation during the complaint response, it did not resolve the damp and mould which remained an issue until the resident was permanently rehoused in April 2025. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlords handling of reports of damp and mould and further compensation is ordered.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the request for additional security features
Finding	Service failure

21. In her stage 1 complaint on 24 September 2024, the resident said she felt unsafe in the property due to the lack of buzzers, cameras and gates. She was unhappy that the communal garden lacked restrictions to limit it to resident use only. Anyone passing by could access the garden, which made her feel uneasy.
22. She said that people who did not live in her block used the garden for parties, smoking and drinking, and this added to her feelings of insecurity in her property. She asked the landlord to add security features to the building and garden. If that was not possible, she wanted the landlord to rehouse her.
23. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. The resident’s report of parties in the garden could have met this definition. The report should have prompted the landlord to investigate further.
24. The landlord’s ASB policy says reports of ASB will be categorised as priority 1 or 2 and handled accordingly. There are actions listed for it to complete, such as gathering further information, creating an action plan and completing a vulnerability assessment. There was no evidence the landlord carried out any actions in line with its ASB policy. This was unreasonable and likely added to the resident’s distress as the landlord did not demonstrate it had taken any action about her reports.
25. In both its complaint responses the landlord did not show that it had considered the resident’s request for additional security. While it had no obligation to provide these features, it would have been reasonable for it to communicate its position with the resident.
26. Overall, the landlord failed to set out its position on the resident’s request for additional security at both complaint stages. It also failed investigate or seek more details about her report of potential ASB. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings during the complaint process or put them right. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlords handling of the request for additional security features.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

27. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord acknowledged complaints and provided responses at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy.
28. In the stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord responded to the resident’s request to be rehoused over her security concerns. However, it did not set out its position on providing additional security features she had requested. The Code says that landlords must address all complaint points raised and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Its failure to do so likely led to feelings of frustration for the resident as she may have felt the landlord had not answered her complaint fully.
29. This leads us to find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and further compensation is ordered.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord did not show in its stage 2 response that it was aware the repointing work was outstanding. It also scheduled a second inspection in December 2024 which had the same recommendations as the previous inspection in October 2024. The landlord is encouraged to reflect on how it records information to ensure effective monitoring of works to completion.

Communication

31. The landlord could consider any improvements needed for internal communication between departments to ensure it can monitor agreed actions through to completion.