London Borough of Hackney (202516676)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202516676

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

London Borough of Hackney

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

1 April 2026

 

Background

  1. The resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in her bathroom in September 2024. She complained about its handling of the repairs. The resident lives with her children, 1 of whom has respiratory issues, of which the landlord is aware.

 

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs.
    2. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found:
    1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
    2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

The response to the resident’s reports of repairs

  1. The landlord delayed completing repairs to the resident’s property and did not work with the TMO to resolve the issues she was experiencing. However, it recognised the delay at both complaint stages and offered compensation in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not comply with its complaint policy. It acknowledged this and offered compensation which was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident.

 

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.

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1120 it offered in its final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and complaint handling is made based on this compensation being paid.

The landlord should contact the resident to arrange a further inspection of the property. It should consider the need for an inspection of the property above for any further leaks. The landlord should then confirm its findings to the resident and if necessary, provide a scope of work and a timetable for the repairs to be completed.

The landlord should consider if further compensation is appropriate in line with its policy from the date of its stage 2 response to when the damp and mould repairs are resolved.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

29 May 2025

The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had damp and mould caused by an unresolved leak coming into her property.

10 October 2025

The landlord replied at stage 1 and apologised for the delays in dealing with the repairs. It said when it discovered a leak coming from the property above, it passed the repair to the TMO who was responsible for internal leaks.

It said it would reinspect for damp and mould on 10 October 2025 and would work with the TMO to identify the source of the leak.

It offered £600 compensation for its delayed repairs and complaint response.

13 October 2025

The resident escalated her complaint. She said she did not think the stage 1 response recognised the seriousness of the damp and mould or the impact on her and her family.

18 November 2025

The landlord replied at stage 2. It acknowledged the delays and communication failures relating to the reports of damp and mould. It said the shared repair responsibilities with the TMO had caused the delays. It said while the leak was ongoing it had been unable to resolve the damp and mould.

It said the TMO gained access to the property above on 17 November 2025. It said it would monitor the situation and raise follow on works as soon as the leak was resolved.

It increased the total compensation offer to £1120 broken down as:

  • £140 for the delayed stage 1 response
  • £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the repairs
  • £200 in consideration of her son’s vulnerabilities
  • £380 for avoidable repair delays

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us she is still living with damp and mould. She said she would like to be moved to a bigger property as she is also overcrowded.

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of repairs

Finding

Maladministration

What we did not investigate

  1. The resident referred to the impact the situation has had on her and her son’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

  1. On 30 September 2024, the resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in her bathroom. It inspected the property on 1 October 2024 and raised follow-on repairs to paint the bathroom with anti-mould paint. This was in line with its repair policy which states it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours. It says it will attend an urgent repair within 5 working days, and a normal repair within 21 working days.
  2. The landlord completed the follow-on repairs on 11 November 2024, 30 working days after the resident’s reported damp and mould. Although the landlord initially attended in line with an emergency repair, the follow-on works exceeded the policy times.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould again on 13 November 2024 and the landlord reinspected the property on 20 November 2024. It raised follow-on works for the damp and mould for1 December 2024, which was within its normal repair time. However, on the day, it found evidence of a leak from the property above, so did not complete the repairs. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the TMO to report the leak. The landlord’s lack of action would have contributed to the delays in resolving the damp and mould for the resident. This is likely to have caused her distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord internally stated it was responsible for undertaking mould washes, and the TMO was responsible for all other internal repairs. We have not seen evidence that confirms this. Nonetheless, as the landlord later accepted, its failure to coordinate with the TMO in a timely and effective manner was a significant factor in the resident’s complaint.
  5. On 10 December 2024, the resident said she was still living with damp and mould, and she was concerned about the effect on her children. The landlord replied on 7 January 2025 and asked her to report the leak to her TMO. It said once the leak was resolved it could carry out internal damp and mould treatment.
  6. On 28 February 2025, the landlord said the TMO reported a leak from the roof into the resident’s property which was the landlord’s responsibility. It attended this repair on 4 March 2025. It said when it arrived, scaffolding and workmen were already on site for roof works, so it did not complete the roof repair. The landlord failed to give the resident an update on this work. This was a communication failure.
  7. On 29 May 2025, the resident complained to the landlord stating there was an unresolved leak into her property that was causing damp and mould. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 9 June 2025. It checked the drains, plumbing and the roof and said it thought any leaks were internal and therefore the TMO’s responsibility.
  8. On 24 July and 5 August 2025, the resident chased the repairs with the landlord. It attended on 28 August 2025 and checked the resident’s bathroom for the leak. It said it had been unable to access the neighbour’s property to find the source of the leak.
  9. On 22 September 2025, the resident contacted the landlord again about the damp and mould. On 23 September 2025, it raised an urgent repair for the damp and mould. It removed the mould and applied anti-mould sealer on 26 September 2025. This was within its policy timescale for an urgent repair.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award up to £600 compensation for a tier 2 failure which it did not acknowledge or fully put right. It can award between £601 to £1000 for a tier 3 when there has been a significant impact on a resident and it has failed to address the detriment. It can award £1000 and above for a tier 4 failure where there was a severe long-term impact on a resident.
  11. On 10 October 2025, the landlord replied at stage 1. It acknowledged there had been repair delays and said the different repair responsibilities between itself and the TMO was a factor for the delay. It said it would work with the TMO, but it had not done this during the 10 months since it had discovered the internal leak.
  12. The landlord recognised its failings and offered the resident compensation to try and put things right. It said the £600 compensation offer was for the repair delays and complaint handling which was in line with its policy for a tier 2 failure. The landlord said it would work with the TMO to resolve the repairs. These were reasonable steps by the landlord.
  13. On 10 October 2025, the landlord inspected the resident’s property. It said water ingress from another property was causing the damp. Following the resident’s complaint escalation the landlord increased the compensation offer to £980 which was in line with a tier 3 failure in its compensation policy. This was reasonable.
  14. When a landlord has acknowledged failings, it is our role to consider whether the redress offered put things right for the resident. To do this we look at our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  15. In summary, the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It tried to resolve the issue, but when it found evidence of an internal leak, it said the TMO was responsible for the repair. It did not work with the TMO to ensure the leak was stopped so it could resolve the damp and mould. This meant the resident continued to live with damp and mould in her property which caused her distress and inconvenience.
  16. The landlord recognised its repair delays and failings. It increased the offer of compensation to align with its compensation policy for a significant impact on a resident. This was also consistent with our remedies guidance for maladministration which has caused distress and inconvenience. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.
  17. There is evidence the landlord isolated the leak in the flat above in December 2025 and completed mould works in the resident’s property in January 2026. However, the resident has told us the issue has not been resolved. We have recommended the landlord contacts the resident to arrange a further inspection of the property and to address any issues.

Complaint

The landlord’s response to the complaint

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its policy time; however, its stage 1 response was delayed by 3 months. She chased her complaint and the landlord replied only after our involvement. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding would have delayed her in exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so she could bring the matter to us for an independent investigation.
  3. The landlord acknowledged and replied to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its policy time. In its stage 2 response it offered £140 for its delayed response at stage 1. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and consistent with its compensation policy.
  4. In summary, the landlord did not comply with its complaint policy, however, it recognised the delay and offered compensation to try and put things right. The offer was in line with its compensation policy for a tier 2 failure and our remedies guidance for a failure that has caused distress and inconvenience. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Learning

  1. The landlord must ensure it responds to repairs in line with its policy times. It must also ensure it works with TMO’s when there is shared responsibility of repairs, so residents are not impacted by delays and miscommunication.
  2. The landlord must ensure it complies with its complaint policy timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping was detailed in this case.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s communication in its complaint responses was detailed and sympathetic.