London Borough of Hackney (202501592)

Background

1. The landlord inspected the property in September 2024 following the resident’s report of damp and mould. The surveyor produced a specification of works, which the resident said did not reflect the severity of the issues in the property. She asked the landlord on various occasions to arrange a new inspection and revise the specification. The landlord has confirmed that the resident reported experiencing health problems, such as persistent coughing, psychological distress and problems with her eyesight. She also reported an injury to her hand.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord carried out inspections of the property and ordered repairs. However, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the scope of works that the landlord had proposed to carry out. It arranged for different contractors to attend without addressing her concerns and this resulted in abortive visits by contractors. The landlord accepted its communication and record keeping had been poor and offered compensation. However, we do not consider the amount offered was proportionate to the failings we identified.
7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within the appropriate timescales in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

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.

8. Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 22 May 2025. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
9. The resident told us she had experienced a persistent cough due to the reported dampness in the bedroom. She also said she had injured her hand while carrying out repairs that the landlord was responsible for. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
10. Following a report of damp and mould by the resident, the landlord raised an order on 9 September 2024 for a surveyor to inspect the property by 8 October 2024. The order said that mould was coming through the thermal boarding on the bedroom wall. The landlord inspected the property on 16 September 2024, which was appropriate as it was within the 21-working day timescale for ‘normal’ priority jobs set out in its repairs policy.
11. Following the inspection, the resident wrote to the landlord on 18 September 2024 and pointed out various repair issues in the property which she asked the landlord to address as part of the proposed works. She also wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2024 and said that the surveyor’s report did not reflect the severity of the problems in her property, including mould in the hallway and poorly fitted thermal boarding in the bedroom. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails, which was unreasonable. She had raised concerns about the scope of the proposed works and therefore was entitled to expect a response from the landlord.
12. During October 2024, the landlord issued a repair order to a contractor to carry out the work specified by the surveyor. The contractor attended in December 2024 but the works were not carried out. The operative’s notes said that the resident was unhappy for the work to be done as the thermal boarding in the bedroom was damaged and the contractor had not been instructed by the landlord to address this. She said she had still not been advised whether the landlord had agreed the additional works that the contractor’s surveyor had identified during an inspection on 19 November 2024. The contractor advised the resident in December 2024 that it had submitted a quote to the landlord for the additional works and was waiting for further instructions from the landlord. The resident therefore wrote to the landlord on 29 January 2025 and said that the contractor was waiting for approval from the landlord.
13. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or gave instructions to its contractor about whether it should carry out the additional works. This was unreasonable as it meant the resident was unclear about whether the landlord had agreed to carry out the additional work.
14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 March 2025 and said that although some issues, such as the replacement of the toilet, had been dealt with because she had reported them individually, the main issues were still outstanding. She said there was mould in her bedroom, on the bathroom ceiling and inside 2 built-in cupboards and there was a hole in the bedroom wall where a vent cover should be. She advised the landlord that she had disabilities.
15. The landlord raised a further order on 27 March 2025 to carry out the works from the September 2024 inspection. The landlord issued the job to a contractor, however, the contractor cancelled the job after speaking to the resident on 2 April 2025. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2025 and said she was unhappy because the specification produced in September 2024 did not accurately reflect the works needed to the property. As the resident had contacted the landlord on various occasions to ask for it to review the scope of the works, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not communicated with her prior to raising a further order.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 April 2025 and confirmed that it had now raised an order for a new inspection. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a new survey because it had been over 6 months since the landlord had inspected the property in September 2024. Also, the resident had requested additional works and the previous contractor’s surveyor had quoted for the additional works. The new survey would therefore give the landlord the opportunity to assess the current condition of the property and identify the required works.
17. The landlord inspected the property on 29 April 2025 and the surveyor’s report said that his risk assessment of the damp and mould was that the severity was mild and the risk rating was low. It was reasonable that the surveyor had assessed the severity and risk in relation to the reported damp and mould as this would help to identify the urgency of any action needed.
18. The surveyor did, however, identify various works, including mould treatment in the bathroom and hallway and work to the ducting under the bench seat in the hallway. His report also noted that the resident believed there was mould trapped behind the thermal boarding that had been installed in the bedroom and therefore wanted the landlord to remove the boarding and treat the mould. The surveyor’s report said that he would refer this to his manager for a decision as it would come under the landlord’s home improvement policy. As the surveyor had inspected the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his findings, including his view that the removal of the thermal boarding came under the landlord’s home improvement policy.
19. The landlord sent a copy of the report to the resident on 30 April 2025, which was reasonable so that she was aware of the outcome of the inspection.
20. The landlord’s records state that on 1 May 2025 its contractor completed the works specified by the surveyor, including treating mould in the bathroom, the hallway storage cupboard and the bench seat and then repainted the areas with anti-mould paint. However, the resident wrote to the landlord on 12 May 2025 and disputed the landlord’s information that the contractor had carried out the work. She said the contractor had only inspected the rooms and had not carried out any mould treatment or painting.
21. As the contractor had advised the landlord it had completed the works and provided photos, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially rely on the contractor’s report. However, as the resident had disputed the contractor’s account and provided her own photos, we would expect the landlord to have carried out its own independent checks, for example by carrying out a post-inspection. We understand that it is not practical for a landlord to independently check or post-inspect every repair. However, in this case it was unreasonable that it had not carried out its own independent checks because of the health implications associated with mould, the resident’s known disabilities and because she had provided photos which she said showed the work had not been carried out on 1 May 2025.
22. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 May 2025 and said the contractor had advised her that the radiator pipes in the bedroom were probably leaking. The landlord replied on 12 May 2025 and said that its area housing surveyor was considering all of the works in the bedroom. However, it raised an order on 12 May 2025 to check the pressure on the central heating system and to check the radiators for leaks. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise an order because the contractor had told the resident there may have been a leak on the bedroom radiator. It is unclear, however, why the landlord had waited over a week to raise the order after receiving the resident’s email on 1 May 2025. This was unreasonable as it meant the resident had to wait longer for a contractor to attend.
23. The gas contractor attended on 16 May 2025, which was 4 working days after it raised the order. It attended within an appropriate timescale as it had raised the repair as an urgent job to be completed within 5 working days in line with its repairs policy. The contractor repaired a leak on the hallway radiator and removed the radiator in the bedroom so it could replace it with a larger radiator, which it ordered.
24. The landlord had also raised an order on 12 May 2025 to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom. The contractor replaced the fan on 21 May 2025, which was 7 working days after raising the order. The time taken to complete the repair was appropriate as it was raised as a normal priority job to be completed within 21 working days in line with its policy.
25. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 May 2025 and asked the landlord to remove the thermal boarding in the bedroom so the wall could be treated before the new radiator was fitted. She wrote again on 21 May 2025 to ask the landlord to approve the works to remove the thermal boarding and treat the wall for mould.
26. On 22 May 2025 the resident spoke to the landlord and confirmed that its contractor had attended to carry out works which did not include removing the thermal boarding and treating the wall in the bedroom. It was unreasonable that the landlord had arranged for another contractor to attend without first advising the resident of its decision regarding the removal of the thermal boards. The landlord’s lack of communication caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident as expressed in an email she sent to the landlord on 22 May 2025 in which she highlighted the impact the situation was having on her health.
27. It was unreasonable that by the time of the landlord sending its stage 2 response on 22 May 2025, the landlord had not given the resident a clear response regarding her concerns about the condition of the thermal boarding in the bedroom and the wall behind it. This was unreasonable as she had written to the landlord in September 2024 and raised concerns about the condition of the thermal boards. She had also raised concerns about mould in the bedroom in her stage 1 complaint dated 20 March 2025 and during the surveyor’s inspection on 29 April 2025.
28. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it would arrange a further inspection. The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2025 to express her frustration that it had to carry out a further inspection before approving any additional works to the bedroom. She referred to the delays and inconvenience she had experienced.
29. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs:
    1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s emails sent in September 2024 regarding her concerns about the scope of the works from the surveyor’s inspection.
    2. It did not respond to her email sent in January 2025 about whether the contractor should carry out the additional works it had quoted for.
    3. The landlord re-issued an order in March 2025 to carry out the same works specified by the surveyor in September 2024 without addressing the resident’s concerns about the scope of the works.
    4. There was a delay in the landlord raising an order to check the radiator after being told by the resident on 1 May 2025 of a possible leak.
    5. The landlord did not carry out its own independent checks in May 2025 when the resident disputed the contractor’s report that it had carried out mould treatment and repainting.
    6. In May 2025 the landlord arranged for another contractor to attend to carry out works without having answered the resident’s concerns about the thermal boarding in the bedroom.
30. We have found that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Its surveyors inspected the property on 16 September 2024 and 29 April 2025 and whilst the landlord was entitled to rely on their findings, it did not provide the resident with a clear response regarding her concerns about the extent of the works proposed. In particular, she had raised concerns about damp and mould in the bedroom and the condition of the thermal boarding since September 2024 and the landlord had not given her a clear response.
31. The landlord’s lack of communication resulted in abortive visits by contractors and distress and inconvenience for the resident. In 2021, we produced a spotlight report on damp and mould, which had various recommendations. One of them was that landlords should ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
32. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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.
33. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in responding to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs. It used its stage 2 response to say that it had found fault in the lack of communication and updates from its surveyors throughout the process. It said this had led to the cancellation of orders. It also said there was fault with its record keeping, which it said had been poor and had caused confusion in relation to the works due to missing system notes.
34. The landlord also acted fairly by using its stage 2 response to seek to put things right by:
    1. Apologising for its failings.
    2. Arranging a further inspection, agreeing to update the resident by 30 May 2025 and committing to remain in contact with her until all necessary repairs were completed.
    3. Noting the resident’s preference for a particular contractor to attend as she said they were familiar with the issues in the property.
    4. Offering compensation.
35. In terms of the level of compensation, the landlord offered £430 for the distress, inconvenience, time trouble and to recognise the resident’s health-related vulnerabilities. The amount offered by the landlord was within the range of sums recommended in its complaints compensation guidance for situations where there were failings that adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. However, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to have been proportionate to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident because:
    1. Although the landlord recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities in its stage 2 response, prior to this we have not seen any evidence that it gave sufficient regard to them.
    2. The resident experienced considerable time, trouble and inconvenience due to having to contact the landlord on various occasions. She also had to provide access for abortive contractor visits.
    3. The resident advised the landlord on various occasions about the distress she was experiencing as a result of mould in her bedroom.
36. Taking all of the circumstances into account, we have made a finding of service failure to recognise that the landlord made an offer of redress but it did not reflect the detriment to the resident and is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £170, which brings the total compensation to £600, which we consider reflects the failings we identified during the period from September 2024 to May 2025.
37. We have noted that the resident wrote to the landlord after receiving its stage 2 response and asked whether she would be reimbursed for materials and equipment she had purchased to carry out work in the property. The landlord responded on the same day and said it was unable to reimburse her for these costs. As her request for reimbursement was not part of her stage 1 or 2 complaints, we have not investigated whether it would be reasonable for the landlord to reimburse her for these costs. The resident has the option of submitting a separate complaint to the landlord if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

38. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. It aims to deal with stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
39. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 20 March 2025, which the landlord acknowledged 4 working days later on 26 March 2023. The landlord therefore appropriately acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within the 5 working days stipulated in the Code.
40. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 April 2025, which was 7 working days after acknowledging the complaint. It responded within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
41. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 11 April 2025 and the landlord sent an automatically generated acknowledgement on the same day. However, it did not send a an acknowledgement defining the complaint until 22 April 2025, which was 6 working days after receiving the complaint. This was slightly outside the 5 working days stipulated in the Code and therefore this was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part.
42. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 May 2025, which was 21 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. Although this was slightly outside the timescale stipulated in its complaints policy, the landlord had agreed with the resident on 13 May 2025 that it could delay its response until 23 May 2025. The landlord had therefore replied within the agreed timeframe, which was appropriate.
43. Overall, the landlord responded to the residents complaints within the appropriate timescales. As a result, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to its response to the reported damp, mould and associated repairs was poor. For example, we have not any records showing the surveyors’ assessments of the property condition when they inspected. The landlord should therefore use our findings to consider how it can improve its record keeping, including properly documenting the findings from surveyors’ inspections.

Communication

45. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. For example, it did not give the resident a clear decision on whether it would remove the thermal boarding in the bedroom. It should therefore use our findings to consider how it can improve its communication, particularly when residents have concerns about the scope of works following an inspection.