London Borough of Hackney (202444538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444538

London Borough of Hackney

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has a mental health condition, breathing difficulties, and chest problems.
The resident reported severe damp and mould in his bedroom, bathroom and hallway on 31 August 2023. The landlord booked an inspection for 7 September 2023, however, the officer could not gain access to the property and therefore, it did not go ahead. The resident reported the issue again on 7 November 2023. An inspection took place on 13 November 2023 which found there was a leak to the windows, ceilings and walls in the bathroom and hallway, which were causing the damp and mould.
The resident made a formal complaint on 23 July 2024. He said he had been reporting severe damp and mould in his property for over 3 years and the landlord had not resolved it. He said it was putting him at risk and affecting his health. He said it had also caused considerable damage to his belongings. The resident said he was very concerned and frustrated by the lack of response to the issue. He wanted the landlord to carry out the necessary remedial works and compensate him for the loss of his personal belongings.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 August 2024. It said:
1. Its repairs database showed the resident reported damp and mould in October 2021 and it carried out an inspection. It said it could not investigate the outcome of the reports as they did not occur within the last 12 months.
2. It outlined the action taken from the report made on 31 August 2023. It said a plumber was able to trace the leak but was unable to remedy it due to access issues with the property in question. It apologised for not remedying the leak and that it could not treat the damp and mould at the time.
3. It confirmed that the resident made a further report in May 2024 and another inspection took place. It said the work order it raised following the inspection was never actioned, which was due to an administrative error.
4. It outlined the action taken since the resident’s formal complaint. It said it had booked an inspection for 16 August 2024 and it would carry out damp and mould treatment following that. It said it discovered the leak was from a different property to what it originally believed. The landlord said it had raised works to remedy the leak and it would contact the resident to schedule them within 7 to 14 days.
5. It acknowledged that the resident had been unable to stay in his home due to the severity of the damp and mould. It apologised that the situation had become “this dire” and said it would progress the damp and mould treatment as quickly as possible.
6. It referred to the resident’s report of damages to his belongings. It pointed him towards his home insurance and said if the resident felt the landlord was liable for the damages, he could contact its insurance services. It upheld his complaint and offered £600 in compensation.
The resident’s social worker contacted the landlord on 28 October 2024. They said they previously raised the issue of damp and mould in the resident’s property and the landlord had carried out a visit on 17 October 2024. They said the resident did not feel there was much of a plan following the visit and no one had followed up with him. The social worker said the resident was under mental health services and had disclosed that the issue was having a significant impact on his mental and physical health. They said he had resorted to sleeping rough in the past just to avoid seeing the mould.
The social worker said they were concerned as the resident was a vulnerable person and had stated that he would not remain in the property throughout the winter if the situation remained the same. The social worker said they had seen the issues and attached images of the affected areas. They said they empathised with the resident as it had been ongoing for 4 years. They asked if someone could signpost or update them on what support the landlord could arrange for the resident. They reiterated that they were concerned for his wellbeing if the landlord could not arrange support within a timely manner.
The landlord carried out a survey of the property on 10 December 2023. It said the resident should be given temporary accommodation for the duration of the works. The notes from the inspection described the resident using a plastic bucket on the bathroom floor to collect droplets of filthy water from the ceiling. It said the bucket was also to prevent further puddles of water on the floor and flooding in the property. It said water had saturated the bathroom ceiling, walls, hallway partition walls, and front elevation brickwork. It confirmed the ceiling lights in the hallway and bathroom were faulty and had been disconnected. It outlined a scope of works to stop the leak and repair the damage in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 January 2025 and stated the following:
1. It said following the resident’s stage 2 escalation it was informed that the leak was resolved. It said the outstanding works should have been allocated to new contractors following its visit in October 2024 but that did not happen. It said it then scheduled the repairs again for 17 December 2024.
2. The landlord confirmed there had been a more recent leak in the resident’s property since 22 November 2024.It said it attended the same day and isolated the electrics in the property. It confirmed that there was currently no light in the resident’s bathroom. It said the appointment on 17 December 2024 was cancelled due to the active leak.
3. It said in a conversation with the resident on 4 December 2024, the resident asked it to temporarily re-house him until the landlord had completed the works. He said this was due to the damp and mould exacerbating his health. The landlord said a surveyor attended the property on 10 December and felt that it was necessary to decant the resident. It said it notified the resident of the decision, however, on further assessment, it was concluded that the resident should not be decanted as the rest of the property remained inhabitable.
4. It said it rectified the leak on 20 December 2024 and the remedial works could now be carried out. It said it was awaiting a response from its contractor regarding when the works could commence and how long they would take. It said it would keep the resident informed throughout the process.
5. The landlord apologised for the level of service the resident had received. It upheld his complaint and awarded a total of £1,430 in compensation. It broke it down as £800 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident, as well as £400 in recognition of his vulnerabilities and the impact on his wellbeing. It also gave £230 for the delay in assessing the leak and carrying out damp and mould treatment between 23 November 2023 and 9 May 2024.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he was at a point of utter despair and had lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to carry out the urgent remedial works. He said he had been living in and reporting the conditions since 2021. He said he asked the landlord to place him into temporary accommodation to allow some respite from the intolerable conditions, but it had refused the request. The resident said the compensation fell short of recognising the impact of the admitted failures and the damage to his possessions. He attached medical letters and a video of his living conditions.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 16 March 2025, the landlord’s contractor stated that it had completed all works except for those required in the bathroom and the flooring in the hallway. It said it was not receiving a response from the resident and had attempted 3 visits which were all recorded as no access. The landlord closed the works order on 6 May 2025 with notes stating that the resident had refused any further works.
The resident disputes that he refused any further works, he said workers would not turn up when they said they would or turn up out of the blue. He said the landlord had plastered some of the wall but the leak was ongoing. The resident said the landlord attended his property in July 2025 to investigate the ongoing leak and he is still awaiting the outcome of that visit. He said the situation remained the same, if not worse. The resident confirmed he was still without lights in his bathroom and living with dangerous damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the delayed resolution to the repairs have negatively affected his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to determine any causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported health conditions. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice regarding this, if he has not already done so. It is however the role of the Ombudsman to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding how this was affecting his health and wellbeing, whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case.
It is not disputed that the resident first reported damp and mould in 2021. The resident raised his formal complaint on 23 July 2024. While he referred to issues since 2021, they were not raised as complaint within a reasonable timeframe, which is normally 12 months. As such we will not investigate the issues from 2021. This investigation will focus on the time period from the report made on 31 August 2023 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response. Any events referred to outside of this timeframe will be for contextual purposes only.
In its complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident to consider making an insurance claim for damage to his possessions. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the costs of negligence claims and the landlord is not obliged to pay such claims outside of the insurance process. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint, he can consider making a liability claim to the landlord’s insurers, as advised.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed). Relevant to this complaint, it provides advice on leaks, damp and mould, and electrical hazards.
The landlord developed a damp and mould strategy and action plan which included inspecting reports of damp and mould within 5 working days. It says it will risk assess existing cases and new inspections to take account of the severity, proportion of the property affected, and household occupancy, including any risk factors. It said this enables a risk based approach. This includes the prioritisation of works and its decision making regarding the need to arrange suitable alternative accommodation where necessary.
The landlord’s repairs guidance says there a number of ways it can support vulnerable customers. This may include giving greater priority for repairs or carrying out work outside of its usual policy.
The landlord’s initial response following the resident’s report on 31 August 2023 was reasonable and in line with its policy. It arranged an inspection for the reported damp and mould within 5 working days. Although, when it attended there was no access. The landlord has not provided any records which show whether there was a reason for no access and whether the appointment had been pre-scheduled with the resident. There is also no evidence of the landlord attempting to re-arrange the appointment with the resident. Given the resident’s reports that the damp and mould was severe, the landlord’s lack of follow up action was not appropriate or proactive.
The inspection which took place in November 2023 identified a leak as the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the inspection report. As per its guidance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have shown consideration to the extent of the damp and mould in the property, any risks to the resident, and the remedial works required.
It was reasonable for the landlord to consider that it could not fully resolve the damp and mould until it had remedied the leak. However, the landlord should have shown how it considered any temporary steps it could have taken to improve the conditions in the property. In the absence of this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord’s actions at the time were proportionate or in line with its policy.
A plumber attended 8 working days later, they traced the leak but they did not carry out any works due to access issues in the neighbour’s property. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised for its failure in not following this up and not remedying the leak. This failing led to the resident having to continue living in what he described as severely damp and mouldy conditions for an unnecessary length of time. While it was appropriate for it to consider compensation for the delay from November 2023 to May 2024, it is unclear why it did not consider compensation for the delays which followed.
The landlord acknowledged its further failure in May 2024 to progress the works required to remedy the leaks, damp, and mould. It said this was an administrative error. The reasons provided for the additional delays following his formal complaint appear to be due to a change in contractor. While the landlord acknowledged its failures again, the repeated mistakes suggest a lack of learning from the landlord.
It is concerning that by the stage 2 response, 16 months after the resident reported severe damp and mould in August 2023, the landlord had not carried out any actions within the resident’s property to address the issue, and subsequent repairs. This likely caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In his formal complaint, the resident said the damp and mould was damaging his health. The following correspondence from his social worker raised concerns for his mental and physical health, as well as his welfare. They said he had resorted to sleeping rough in the past just to avoid the mould. They asked what support the landlord could put in place.
It is a failing that apart from escalating the complaint to stage 2, we have not seen evidence of the landlord responding to the social worker regarding the support it could offer. The landlord’s repairs guidance states that there are a number of ways it could support vulnerable residents, but we have not seen evidence of the landlord considering what these could be for the resident in this case.
It is also not appropriate that the landlord has not provided any evidence to show it considered the habitability of the property until December 2024. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident informed it on 6 August 2024 that he was unable to reside in the property. It apologised that the situation had become “this dire”. While a further inspection took place on 16 August 2024, due to further internal failings by the landlord, the damp and mould remained untreated. The resident’s social worker contacted the landlord in October 2024 to raise concerns that the resident would not remain in the property due to the mould. All of the reports made should have prompted the landlord to assess the habitability of the property.
Following the inspection on 10 December 2024, the landlord told the resident it would temporarily decant him. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 December 2024 to ask for an update on this. He asked if it expected him “to go through another Christmas with water leaking into my property, no electrics or facilities to wash and levels of mould which are clearly dangerous”.
In an internal email on 19 December 2024, the landlord decided that a decant was “not good value for money”, it said the works were scheduled to commence that day. On 24 December 2024, in another internal email, the landlord confirmed that it had resolved the leak. It said the surveyor’s report did not say the rest of the property was uninhabitable, therefore it would not be requesting a decant.
The inspection on the 10 December 2024 and the residents email on 16 December highlighted multiple hazards in the resident’s property which suggested the bathroom and parts of the hallway were not fit for purpose. It was understandable for the resident to query how he would wash in the absence of his facilities and lighting. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not provide a response to that query.
Its internal correspondence referred to fixing the leak and the rest of the property being habitable. But it did not outline what provisions it would offer to the resident in lieu of a decant until it could complete the internal works. This should have included consideration to alternative bathroom facilities and temporary lighting.
There is no evidence of the landlord informing the resident of its change in decision regarding his decant until the stage 2 response on 6 January 2025. This is a further failing and would not have managed his expectations. Landlords are entitled to change their decisions and consider budgets, but they still have a responsibility to ensure properties are safe and of a decent standard. The landlord said it had fixed the leak but as the internal remedial works were outstanding, the living conditions for the resident would have remained largely the same. Its change of decision did not appear to be led by any consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities or assessment of risk, which was not appropriate.
The landlord has stated that the resident stopped engaging following the stage 2 response. The resident disputes this and has informed this Service of his recent reports to the landlord regarding the leak. While it is important that residents allow access to their properties to carry out repairs, given the reported vulnerabilities and living conditions for the resident, it would have been reasonable for landlord to consider what steps it needed to take to gain access to the property, rather than closing the case. Orders will be made to assist with repairing the landlord tenant relationship and with the aim to fully resolve the outstanding issues in the property.
To conclude, the landlord caused repeated delays and failed to pursue the avenues available to it to ensure the property was decent and habitable for the resident. While it did acknowledge its delays and apologised for them, it still failed to progress the works within a reasonable timeframe. This demonstrates a lack of learning. It is not fair that the resident and his social worker had to repeatedly chase the landlord for it to take action and that the health and welfare needs of the resident were unaddressed.
The landlord offered a total of £1,430 which was appropriate for the failings it identified and in line with its compensation guidance. It showed it had considered some of the delays and some of the impact caused to the resident. While this was a significant amount of compensation, the landlord failed to evidence to this Service that it had fully considered the habitability of the property and the reports that the resident could not reside there. This included its lack of risk assessment, its delays in considering a decant, and the poor communication regarding the decant. These were considerable failings which likely contributed to the distress and inconvenience reported by the resident.
The landlord should therefore pay the resident an additional £632 in compensation for the above failures. This is in line with its guidance for failures where rooms are uninhabitable for a period of time due to the landlord’s failures. It is approximately 25% of the resident’s rent from 6 August 2024 when the resident said he had been unable to stay in his home due to the damp and mould, up to the stage 2 response. This is because we consider, in the circumstances, that it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation that recognises the period of time the resident has been unable to safely use a proportion of his home.
Taken altogether, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Special investigation

In May 2025, this Service issued a special investigation report about the landlord. We highlighted our concerns about its handling of repairs, and specifically leaks, damp and mould. The report pointed out repeated issues with underestimating the urgency and risk of the service request and work orders raised or cancelled in error. And as shown in this report, it referenced how the landlord’s plans lacked analysis and risk assessments to support its decision making and prioritisation. The report referred to the landlord’s 5 day inspection target for damp and mould inspections, we said it was welcome but highlighted that there was no mention of the number of days to complete any work identified.
The report recommended that the landlord produce a performance reporting framework to ensure there is relevant scrutiny and oversight of data. This includes the time taken to complete damp and mould works and satisfaction with those works. It also made recommendations related to vulnerable residents and its risk management process. The landlord has committed to implementing the recommendations by 1 September 2025. As such, we will not make any further orders or recommendations in relation to the failures in this report.

Determination

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.

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this report. Specifically, its poor handling of his request for a decant and the lack of risk assessment throughout the case. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £2,062 in compensation. This is broken down as:
1. The £1,430 offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
2. £632 in recognition of the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of his bathroom.
The landlord must complete a risk assessment with the resident, taking into account the vulnerabilities highlighted in this report and the current condition of his property. If any risks are identified, it must record how it intends to manage the risk(s), in line with its guidance and responsibilities under the HHSRS.
The landlord must carry out a full inspection of the property and produce an action plan, with defined timescales for completing all the works required in the property. It should consider the reports of an ongoing leak and outline what steps it has taken or will take to remedy any leaks identified. The inspection report should take into account the risk assessment and it should confirm whether a temporary decant will be required for the resident.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.