London Borough of Hackney (202449252)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449252

London Borough of Hackney

28 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks, damp, and mould.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 22 August 2011 and lives in her property with her daughter. The property is a ground floor, 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has an alert on its system which notes that the resident’s daughter is disabled.
As the landlord’s contractors carry out works on behalf of the landlord so that the landlord can meet its repair obligations, this report will simply make reference to “the landlord”. However, we shall make specific reference to a contractor where this will add clarity to the report.
On 4 March 2024, the landlord inspected the resident’s property after she reported damp and mould in the bathroom. It also assessed whether to replace the resident’s radiators and boiler. On 23 July 2024, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated the landlord had not arranged a date for works since the inspection of 4 March 2024.
On 7 August 2024, the landlord sent the stage 1 response. It noted action taken after the inspection of 4 March 2024. It upheld the complaint as it took too long to book in follow up work, which included various bathroom works. It confirmed an appointment for 14 August 2024 to complete works. It offered compensation of £320 comprising:
1. £100 – time and trouble.
2. £220 – avoidable delay.
On 24 October 2024, the resident stated mould was coming back and paint was peeling after the works in August in the bathroom and toilet. She noted the bathroom was constantly damp, in part because the landlord did not change the extractor fan.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 January 2025. She stated:
1. Works completed in August 2024 did not resolve the mould. It was unclear whether the landlord had fixed leaks she had reported from new radiators that it had installed.
2. There was mould in every room and there had been many surveyor visits. The landlord’s solution was to install “damp walls” (boarding on the wall); however, the boarding was now growing mould.
3. She had to throw away furniture.
4. She had not heard from the contractor since the inspection of 13 November 2024, despite chasing the landlord.
On 4 March 2025, the landlord sent the stage 2 response. It outlined the chronology of the case which included a further works order raised on 30 January 2025. It accepted fault as there was a delay to works and mould returned after the works in August 2024. Its contractor would collect a humidifier it had provided and complete works on 6 March 2025. The landlord also advised the resident she could make an insurance claim for damaged possessions. It awarded a further £655 compensation (to be offset against arrears) comprising:
1. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £200 for vulnerability issues relating to her daughter.
3. £130 avoidable delay to repairs.
4. £25 for a missed appointment on 29 February 2024.
On 5 March 2025, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman and said the following:
1. The landlord did not provide in writing the works it intended to do. It then carried out different works to that it verbally advised.
2. The landlord told her in August 2024 that it would find source of a leak before all other works.
3. There was still mould in every room on walls and/or on her possessions. Woodwork was also rotting. The landlord had still not identified the cause.
4. In October 2024, an operative who was passing by found a leak under her bath. There should not have been a leak as the landlord had carried out bathroom works in August 2024.
5. She understood a post-inspection of 13 November 2024 had recommended that the boarding in her daughter’s room should be taken out.
6. The landlord had provided a dehumidifier on 14 February 2025 which did not work. Therefore, works could not be completed on 21 February 2025 as the walls were still wet.
7. On 24 February 2025, the landlord told her by phone the works that should be completed. This was more extensive than the contractor’s schedule.
8. The landlord treated mould and painted surfaces in February 2025, but paint was already peeling off.
9. On 6 March 2025, the contractor stated it would only complete bathroom works that day.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The resident has advised the Ombudsman there has been damp and mould issues, especially, in her daughter’s bedroom, throughout her tenancy. However, the formal complaint brought to us was not submitted to the landlord until July 2024. It is important that complaints are brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to fully investigate. As a result, this investigation is focused on events from July 2023. Any events which occurred prior to this date have been considered for context, but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
The resident has advised that damp and mould has affected her physical and mental wellbeing. Whilst the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have caused and had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Courts of law can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. The landlord’s liability insurer can also consider medical evidence and settle claims. However, the Ombudsman can take into account any elevated distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from a landlord’s service failure.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
After the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom, particularly on the ceiling, on 4 March 2024, a surveyor attended the resident’s property. Following the inspection, on 15 March 2024, the landlord raised an order for various repairs to the bathroom. This included mould treatment to walls and ceiling, fully decorating the bathroom, renewing the extractor fan, renewing a missing bath tile and regrouting the bath, and renewing the mixer taps. The works were allocated to a contractor (contractor A) and assigned “normal priority”.
The landlord’s repairs guide states it should complete “normal repairs” within 21 days. However, the landlord failed to meet this timeframe. In fact, there is no evidence from that time that the landlord or contractor A sought to complete works before the resident’s complaint of 23 July 2024. This indicates the landlord may have lost oversight of the repair order and did not monitor contractor A or intervene to ensure completion of the works it had identified.
The stage 2 response noted that contractor A phoned the resident on 18 March 2024 and 15 April 2024 and left voicemail messages. The response also stated that an inspection for 10 May 2024 was rescheduled for 24 May 2024. The response further noted that contractor A applied for a variation to the order on 24 July 2024. The responses also accepted that the resident had prior to complaining “called on numerous occasions chasing for the follow-on work to be booked in, however, with no prevail.” However, there are no records of these actions. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. Records also enable landlord to monitor outstanding repairs and manage the performance of contractors. They also enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
The landlord agreed the variation on 31 July 2024. Contractor A subsequently arranged an appointment for 14 August 2024, and completed works on this date. This was over 4 months after the allotted timescale of 21 days. This was an unreasonable delay, notwithstanding the time taken to gain access to the property. In fact, there is no evidence the landlord contacted contractor A about the status and progress of the works until the resident made her complaint. This was inappropriate as the landlord is ultimately responsible for the repair condition of the resident’s property, which includes proactive oversight of contractors.
On 24 October 2024, the resident reported that 2 months after contractor A’s work, the paint was coming off and mould was coming back. She advised that the bathroom was constantly damp, no matter what she did, in part she considered was due to the landlord not replacing the extractor fan. After speaking to the resident on 6 November 2024, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property on 13 November 2024. This was appropriate as it could then assess the quality of the works completed by contractor A and reach an informed decision on whether to order further works. However, it should have arranged an earlier appointment. This is because it states in its response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations in our Spotlight report of damp and mould that a surveyor should inspect within 5 working days of a report. This aligns with its timeframe for urgent repairs.
In the interim, the resident had reported damp patches on walls in the kitchen and hallway following the installation of new boiler and radiators in summer 2024. The landlord attended on 1 November 2024 and found there was no fault or leak with the boilers or radiators.
The parties do not dispute that a surveyor attended on 13 November 2024. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that it made a list of works. However, the landlord has not provided us with a record of the visit, which is another record keeping failure. This may indicate a failure to collate and cross-reference all necessary information, held across different systems and databases. Moreover, the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations in our Spotlight report of damp and mould states it should ensure “every survey report includes photographs of the property’s condition”. There is no evidence that it took its own photos as required.
After the inspection of 13 November 2024, there was a further delay in completing the works identified. This in part was due to a decision to ask contractor A to post-inspect the works in the first instance. It then in error contacted another contractor (contractor B) unconnected with the case, who did not make an appointment with the resident or respond to the landlord. The landlord did not realise this error until 22 January 2025 which demonstrated inadequate attention to detail and imprecise internal records.
On 30 January 2025, the landlord raised a repair order that was assigned to a new contractor (contractor C). The works included checking the drylining and replastering in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom, which entailed draining the central heating and removing a radiator. Within the bathroom, it was to renew the fan, trace and remedy leaks after removing the bath panel and ducting, and treating and plastering the bathroom ceiling. The contractor was to install a dehumidifier for 5 days before works. The repairs were assigned a normal priority, therefore should have been completed within 21 days, by 21 February 2025.
On 12 February 2025, contactor C carried out a mould treatment in the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, hallway, and cupboard. This was reasonable as it eradicated the mould at that time. However, these works were more extensive than the works order. This indicates that the landlord had failed to identify the full extent of the mould at the inspection in November 2024, and/or that mould had spread while there was a delay in arranging works.
The landlord advised in the stage 2 response that contractor C would complete all works on 6 March 2025. This was outside the timeframe for the works. In part, this was caused by contractor C, on 14 February 2025, providing a dehumidifier that did not work correctly. On 6 March 2025, the resident reported that an operative attended that day but was not sure what works to complete.
Thereafter, there were further delays in the completion of works. When contractor C reattended, it was not sure of the location of the bedroom works. It left the property and asked the landlord for clarification on 18 March 2025. The landlord accepted it had made another error in communication but queried why contractor C did not commence other works. Contractor C attended the following day 19 March 2025, but only then advised the landlord it could not remove the radiator to facilitate the bedroom works. This caused further delay as the landlord had to refer the radiator works to its gas team which isolated the radiator on 12 May 2025.
Aside from these particular delays, the landlord had ordered the contractor to trace and remedy leaks. Leaks may be a contributory cause of damp and mould. This order was appropriate as its damp and mould Spotlight report response states it should “ensure that we are getting to the root cause of the issue and not just treating and painting over mould”. Identifying any leaks was particularly important given the resident had complained about recurrence of mould after works to treat it and specifically queried whether leaks had been resolved.
The resident advised the Ombudsman that, in fact, the landlord told her in August 2024 that it would find the source of a leak before completing all other works. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord provided this advice. Regardless, there is no evidence the landlord determined the root cause of the damp and mould prior to treating and painting over the mould. It therefore did not follow its damp policy. Such an investigation could have included tracing and remedying any leaks.
Contractor C attended on 14 May 2025 but did not complete works, aside from overhauling the extractor fan, as it referred the detection of the leak back to the landlord. It reported leaks “all over the house”, which caused the dampness. On 19 May 2025, the landlord commissioned its leak detection team. The delay in investigating the root cause has exacerbated the delays in the completion of works to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman the leak detection team has now traced a leak in the building.
In summary, there have been delays in raising and completing works after inspections both in March and November 2024. The inspection of November 2024 itself was delayed. A failure to monitor the progress and status of the repair orders and oversee the contractors, in particular contractor A contributed to delays, which was unreasonable. There have been instances of miscommunication with its contractors which have contributed to delays. There was also a failure to investigate the root cause of the damp and mould, and remedy any leaks at the earliest opportunity. This has exacerbated the delays in the completion of works to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Compounding the delays, the landlord has not consistently updated the resident about the status and progress of repairs.
The landlord in its complaint response recognised that there were “avoidable delays”, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience and exacerbated her time and trouble in seeking a resolution. It offered a total of £750 for the delays. Its compensation policy, which aligns with our remedies guidance, states that it can offer compensation between £600 and £1,000 where there is a significant impact on the resident. Its award was within the range. The policy also states that where there is an aggravating impact such as vulnerability, it can enhance awards by up to 50%. The landlord awarded a further £200 compensation in considering the impact of the failure on the resident’s vulnerable daughter.
However, the landlord did not meet its stated target of 6 March 2025 for completion of repairs. In fact, there were further delays and failed appointments. As of July 2025, works remain outstanding to the resident’s property and it isn’t clear that the root cause of the issue has been resolved. The landlord’s compensation was not reflective of these circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord. We order the landlord to pay a further £400 compensation in addition to that already offered. This takes into account the further delay to works, recurrence of mould after treatment, and missed appointments. Our award is within the range of compensation in our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The Ombudsman has carried out an investigation of the landlord recently under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This allows the Ombudsman to conduct further investigation into whether there is a systemic failure. From this we made a recommendation in respect of repairs, leaks, damp, and mould. This was to:
1. Produce a performance reporting framework to ensure relevant scrutiny and oversight functions receive transparent, accurate and insightful information and data. This should include the time taken to complete damp and mould works and satisfaction with these works.
We are still in the progress of monitoring compliance with this recommendation. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the paragraph 49 cases and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the above order. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the paragraph 49 investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. Pay the resident £1,455 compensation comprising:
  1. The £955 offered to her within the complaints procedure.
  2. A further £400 to reflect her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble arising from the ongoing delay to the works ordered on 30 January 2025.
2. Complete all the works that were raised on 30 January 2025. If necessary, it should carry out further treatment of the mould.
3. Advise the resident what it considers to be the cause(s) of damp and mould in her property. This includes informing her of any leaks that may be affecting her property. If necessary, it should carry out further investigations. Furthermore, the landlord should confirm what works it will take to resolve the leaks, damp, and mould and ensure they are completed to a satisfactory standard.
4. Incorporate the learning from this complaint into the recommendations made under the paragraph 49 review.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 6 weeks, to undertake a review of this case. This should be conducted by an impartial senior officer. At a minimum, it should consider the below list of issues and identify what improvements might be made and brought into its day-to-day operations:
1. Whether it followed its processes for resolving damp and mould cases, in particular whether it reached a view on the cause of the damp and mould reported in the first instance.
2. Whether it could have improved its record-keeping and communication internally and with contractors.
3. Whether it could have better updated the resident on the progress of her repairs, especially those repairs that were delayed beyond agreed or expected dates.
4. Whether there are additional issues and learning from this case that can inform and augment its response to the paragraph 49 recommendations and any future strategic review of the repairs service.