Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202423217)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423217

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

9 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
    2. Concerns about staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. She has lived at the property since August 2015. The property is a 3 bedroom flat on the basement and ground floors of a converted house. She shares the property with her husband and children. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities within the family.
  2. The landlord inspected the resident’s flat on 7 June 2023 following her reports of damp and mould in 2 of the bedrooms. The landlord raised a works order on 8 June 2023 to carry out work to the property. These were described as: “Insert membrane at joint between BW and front and rear elevation, chimney sweep, re-plastering works, take down polystyrene tiles and decorate, re-paint and insulate pipes”. Following a complaint raised by the resident in November 2023, the landlord’s repair records show that it raised this order again on 6 November 2023. From the evidence provided ‘BW’ in the context of this works order seems to reference the bay window. The landlord put up scaffolding around the bay window in late January 2024. The landlord’s records show the works order as completed on 6 February 2024.
  3. The landlord conducted an inspection on 8 March 2024 following the resident’s reports of rising damp. The surveyor’s report includes 3 photographs of damp meter readings. It notes that following both a visual inspection and an investigation with the damp meter, it concluded that there were no signs of damp in the property. Further, the surveyor recorded that staining and moisture issues experienced by the resident were due to a leak from the upstairs flat that it had resolved. It noted that “the flat was also sufficient in temperature and thermal boarding/other types of weather proofing are not required”.
  4. On 12 June 2024 the landlord raised an order for a plumber to attend to a leaking pipe at the side of the resident’s property. This was located above her front door. The landlord’s records show this as completed on 3 July 2024.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with her landlord on 11 July 2024. She also sent this to her local councillor. In this she said that there was an issue of dampness in her home, that the landlord had not fixed despite her previous complaints. She said:
    1. The landlord had inspected her home, but she believed that these had been carried out by general inspectors who had failed to acknowledge the presence of damp.
    2. She was frustrated and concerned about the wellbeing of her family. She said her young son’s health had deteriorated and she believed this was due to the damp environment within her flat.
    3. The landlord’s contractor had inspected her windows on 11 July 2024. The contractor had found damp in the bedroom and highlighted the risks to her.
    4. She wanted her landlord to take immediate action and send a qualified professional to carry out an inspection for the health and wellbeing of her family.
  6. In response to her complaint the landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection of her property for 15 July 2024. It also contacted the local councillor on 12 July 2024 to tell them the actions it was taking. The landlord’s records show that its inspection found no damp and mould, other than a small amount of mould in the bathroom. It suspected this was due to a leak from the flat above. The surveyor confirmed that it had arranged to treat and redecorate the affected area once it had fixed the leak.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2024. It said it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and set out its understanding of this. It noted that she had reported an issue of persistent dampness and that various workmen had attended her home. It acknowledged her feeling of frustration and concern for her son’s health. It confirmed that it had spoken with its damp and mould team. They had completed an inspection on 8 March 2024 as an outcome to an earlier complaint. They reported that there were no visual traces of damp and mould within the property. It noted that a contractor who had recently visited to inspect her windows, and had commented about damp within the property, was a general tradesman.  It had arranged for a damp and mould surveyor to attend on 15 July 2024. On this occasion the surveyor found no traces of mould. The surveyor had used a damp meter as part of the inspection. It found light mould in the bathroom and attributed this to condensation. It had given advice to the resident about ventilation. It suspected that there may be a leak from the flat above and it had asked its repairs team to follow this up. It said that it had arranged for a mould wash and to repaint the bathroom ceiling once these checks were complete. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  8. The resident responded directly to ask it to escalate her complaint. She said that she was dissatisfied with the service of the surveyor who had attended and disagreed with the assessment. She said that they were only looking for black mould. Further, she had found him to be hasty and rushed in his inspection. She set out issues within her property which she believed evidenced rising damp. She said that there was a leak from above and not condensation. She wanted the landlord to carry out a detailed investigation and consider the signs of damp previously overlooked.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 August 2024. It recorded that she was unhappy with the surveys it had carried out and that she believed that there were several indicators of damp in her property. These included peeling wallpaper, crumbling plaster and a damp smell in the bedroom. Further she believed that the damp in the bathroom was due to a leak from above. It said:
    1. Its stage 1 had confirmed that the inspection on 8 March 2024 had found no evidence of damp and mould. Further it had confirmed that it was dealing with the leak affecting the bathroom ceiling.
    2. All its surveyors were fully trained and were aware of the signs to look for when investigating damp and mould. It had fed her comments back to the surveying manager. It would reinforce training to its staff on being polite and helpful to resident’s during visits.
    3. Its surveying manager had visited the property on 21 August 2024. He reported that there were no issues of damp and mould. He did note a water stain on the bathroom ceiling, which he had marked. He would return the following week to see if this had increased. He would then arrange for the necessary work to be carried out, to treat and repaint the affected area.
    4. It had closed her complaint, and its complaint monitoring team would follow up to ensure that it completed the required repairs.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident brought her complaint to this service on 15 September 2024. She said that the damp led to uncomfortable living conditions. This was particularly notable in winter. She said that this had an impact on the health of her family due to the cold and dampness. She believed that her home needed extensive repairs, and that the landlord would not do these due to the high cost.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November and 3 December 2024. It said that it had completed a post inspection of the work its contractors had done following her complaint. It had completed all the outstanding repairs and had closed her complaint.
  3. This service accepted the resident’s complaint on 21 January 2025 and confirmed with her that the issue of damp and mould remained outstanding. She further confirmed to us, in conversation on 29 April 2025, that the landlord had completed repairs to the leak from the flat upstairs, which had affected her bathroom and living room. She however remained concerned about damp and mould in the basement area of her flat, where her kitchen and 2 bedrooms were located. She said that this was a particular issue in colder weather.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Through her complaint the resident has highlighted her concerns about the impact that damp and mould within her home may have on her own and her family’s health. She specifically raised a concern about her son’s physical health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These can be more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

Reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord 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 must consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to residents so their expectations can be managed.”
  3. After the resident’s complaint, in December 2024, the landlord introduced a new policy on dealing with reports of damp and mould. This sets out the responsibilities of the landlord in relation to its homes. It says that it will ensure that all staff receive training to raise awareness of damp and mould and its impact. The policy sets its focus on preventing and tackling damp, mould and condensation where it occurs.
  4. The landlord carried out 3 separate inspections of the resident’s home following her reports of damp and mould. It arranged for repair works following the inspection carried out in June 2023. The landlord’s records show that there was a delay in these being completed. It is noted that these were only recorded as completed on 12 February 2024, 8 months after these were identified. It was also necessary for the resident to raise a complaint in November 2023 for these repairs to be progressed. This is a failure by the landlord to act promptly to deal with repairs.
  5. The inspection completed in March 2024 reported that there was no damp found in the property. The surveyors report included 3 photographs. These show the readings taken with a damp meter at 3 points within the property, although the report does not record the location of these readings. Further there is no commentary as to the significance of the readings shown. The first shows a reading of 154, the second of 90 and the third of 134. It would be reasonable to expect that the report would provide context for the readings taken and why these evidence that there is no concern about damp in the property. To not include this detail is a failure in clear record keeping and leaves the findings inconclusive. In carrying out an inspection of reported damp and mould it would have been reasonable for the landlord to record both moisture readings and the relative humidity within the flat. That it did not do so was a short coming in its inspection.
  6. The landlord carried out a further inspection following the resident’s complaint on 15 July 2024. This once again noted that no damp or mould was present. On this occasion the surveyor provided no formal report. The surveyor communicated their findings internally via email. When the complaints officer requested a report, the surveyor said that no report was needed as there was no evidence of damp and mould. It would have been appropriate for the surveyor to have recorded the details of his inspection and findings. The surveyor had found a small area of mould on the bathroom ceiling which they noted was from a leak from the flat upstairs. It further recorded that it would need to treat the ceiling once it had repaired the leak. The landlord followed up on this leak through the course of the resident’s complaint and completed works to her ceiling in December 2024. The resident has told this service that the landlord has repaired the external leaks into her home. It is positive that these leaks were dealt with. There were however delays in the landlord completing these which was a failure in its service to the resident.
  7. Of the inspections carried out by the landlord, none commented on the issues highlighted by the resident of peeling wallpaper and crumbling plaster. She had said that she believed that these showed the presence of rising damp within her home. The information captured by the landlord focused on the visual aspect of the inspection and the lack of visible mould within the property. Where the landlord has provided evidence of damp meter readings, these lack context. In its later inspection it did not record the damp meter readings taken. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping. To have captured meter readings at each inspection would have captured changes in the environment over time.
  8. The resident’s formal complaint followed an inspection of her windows on 11 July 2024. A contractor carried this out on behalf of the landlord. The resident reported that damp had been identified as part of this inspection and expressed her concern as part of her complaint. The landlord investigated the comments made by its contractor and in its stage 1 complaint response referred to them as a “general tradesman”.
  9. On 31 July 2024, its internal records note that the contractor denied making generalised comments about the dangers of damp and mould. The contractor said that they could smell damp within the basement bedroom, in the area by the front bay. Further they said that the curtains had a damp feel and there was evidence of mould spores on the window. The contractor noted that the property was very clean and there were no other obvious signs of mould. Having received this feedback from its contractor the landlord took no follow up action. At stage 2 the landlord’s surveying manager visited the property, with a focus on the area of mould in the bathroom, highlighting this to check that the leak had stopped. Given the detail provided by its contractor it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a more extensive damp survey. That it did not do so was a failure.
  10. The landlord took steps to carry out the works needed to repair leaks into the resident’s home. There were however some noted delays in these being progressed. The landlord should have acted more quickly and kept oversight to ensure that its contractor fully completed the works it was asked to do. There was a failure by the landlord to adequately investigate the resident’s concerns about damp and mould and that the property had rising damp. Its inspection report did not have the detail needed to explain and provide context for the damp meter readings taken. There was an emphasis on the appearance of mould rather than noting the issues highlighted by the resident such as peeling wallpaper or the damp smell noted by its contractor. This amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  11. The resident has told us that the damp within her home is most notable during colder and wetter months. An order has been made for the landlord to undertake a specialist damp and mould survey of the resident’s home. The landlord is to agree the timing of this inspection with the resident. Once complete the landlord should share the findings with the resident and schedule any recommended works. Furthermore, an order for compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in having to pursue this issue with the landlord over an extended period has been made.

Concerns about staff conduct

  1. Within her stage 2 complaint the resident raised a concern about the actions of the surveyor who attended her property to conduct a damp and mould inspection on 15 July 2024. She said that she found that he was “hasty and rushed” and that he was only looking for black mould. The landlord addressed her concerns in its stage 2 complaint response. It arranged a follow up visit by its surveying manager, highlighted the training given to its surveyors and said that it would reinforce its training around “being polite and helpful to residents”. This was an appropriate response in the circumstances of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The output from this inspection has been considered in further detail in the above section focused on the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. By addressing the resident’s general concerns about its surveyor’s behaviour and assuring the resident that it would reinforce the training of its staff there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this issue. It should take the learning from this complaint and ensure that it has a regular programme of customer care training for all its staff.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with our guidelines on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in having to pursue this matter.
    3. Arrange with the resident to undertake a specialist damp and mould survey of her home. It must agree with the resident the timing of this inspection to ensure that it accurately captures her concerns. This may need to be carried out in the autumn. The landlord should provide evidence within 4 weeks that it has booked the survey with the resident to show its compliance with this order.