London Borough of Harrow (202515440)

Decision
Case ID	202515440
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Harrow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Introductory Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a flat. In February 2025 he reported a leak from the upstairs property. The leak caused damage to the resident’s flat and he moved to temporary accommodation so that the landlord could complete repairs. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to the leak and its handling of the subsequent repairs. The resident reported that he has mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Repairs caused by a leak from a neighbouring property.
2. Shower repairs.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that the landlord was responsible for:
1. Maladministration for its response to repairs caused by a leak from a neighbouring property.
2. Maladministration for its response to shower repairs.
3. Maladministration for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs caused by a leak

There were delays in the landlord assessing the damage caused by the leak and carrying out related repairs reported by the resident. The landlord appropriately identified failings regarding its handling of repairs and offered compensation. We determined that the compensation offered was insufficient to remedy the impact on the resident.

Shower repairs

The landlord did not raise follow‑on works or resolve the shower drainage issue for over 7 weeks, leaving the resident without suitable bathing facilities, which was a failing. The landlord did not address the shower repairs in its complaint response. We have ordered compensation based on loss of amenity and an additional payment for the impact of the delay.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and did not consider the resident’s concerns about shower repairs within its complaint responses.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,125 made up as follows: £350 already offered in its complaint response. £300 for distress and inconvenience as a result of failures relating to its handling of the repairs caused by a leak. £175 based on a proportion of rent to recognise the loss of showering facilities for a period of 51 days £150 for distress and inconvenience as a result of failures relating to its handling of shower repairs. £150 for distress and inconvenience as a result of failures relating to its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 25 March 2026
3	Works order The landlord must provide the resident with a written update confirming the works that it has completed since the end of the complaints process, together with an action plan for any outstanding works. This will include a response to his comments to us about redecoration, remaining issues with the walls at the property and repairs to the hot water unit. A copy of this written update is to be sent to this service.	No later than 25 March 2026
4	Insurance order The landlord must contact the resident to obtain details about damaged items. Based on the information provided, it should then consider whether a referral to its liability insurers is appropriate. The landlord must write to both the resident and the Ombudsman explaining its decision and, if required, provide the insurer’s details to the resident.	No later than 25 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 April 2025	The resident raised a complaint, in which he said: The leak in February 2025 from the above flat had caused mould, damage to walls, flooring and personal belongings, as well as an unpleasant odour. The operative who attended the leak refused to force access to the upstairs flat to turn off the tap. The landlord’s repairs team did not commence remedial action until 2 weeks after the leak, during which time the flat deteriorated further and the ceiling collapsed. There was mould on the flooring caused by the leak which remained in place due to his mobility issues and lack of financial means to fund its removal and replacement. The living room and bedroom were uninhabitable and posed a health risk. A drainage issue in the wet room meant he was unable to use the shower, and he had been without adequate sanitation for an extended period despite reporting this to the landlord. The issues had affected his mental health, resulting in depression, and caused constant stress and anxiety. The landlord should remedy the damage to the walls, eradicate the damp and mould and pay compensation for the removal and replacement of flooring, the electricity bill incurred by the use of tools during repairs, damage to personal items and the stress, anxiety and depression caused.
10 May 2025	The resident contacted the landlord about his complaint. He said: He had moved back into his property on 28 March 2025, and the shower had been unusable since, despite multiple repair requests to the landlord. Plumbers attended to inspect the shower, but no repairs had been completed. He requested compensation based on rent for the period during which showering facilities were unavailable and written confirmation of when the works would be completed.
20 May 2025	The landlord requested a 10-day extension to respond to the complaint, which the resident agreed to.
5-6 June 2025	The resident contacted the landlord and said he had not received a response to the complaint, and he wanted to escalate it to stage 2. He said he was concerned by the landlord’s ongoing lack of response and accountability. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2.
7 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it said: Works in the bedroom and living room remained outstanding and would be scheduled once drying was confirmed by the surveyor. It partially upheld the complaint about delayed works, as it did not initially supply a dehumidifier. The mould issues likely resulted from insufficient drying time before redecoration. It said the condition of the property when the resident moved back in did not meet expected standards. It did not accept liability for personal items and contents insurance should protect against such losses. It did not make further attempts to schedule works after an operative was unable to complete them on 29 May 2025 due to furniture obstructing access. It apologised and said it would offer support with moving furniture. Its communication and case oversight were not consistent. It would carry out various outstanding works and improve its case oversight. It offered £350 compensation, made up as £200 for carpet replacement and £150 for delays, inconvenience and mismanagement.
16 July 2025	The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said: The damp and mould had seriously impacted his physical and mental health, and he had developed respiratory symptoms which he believed were a direct result of exposure to mould. The landlord refused to accept liability for damaged items, despite the damage being a direct consequence of its failure to take timely action to prevent and address disrepair. He is vulnerable with mobility issues, and the removal of the carpet had left an uneven surface and sharp edges, making moving around difficult and hazardous. It took 2 months for the landlord to repair the shower. To resolve his complaint, the landlord should: – Pay £5,500 for damage to personal belongings. – Pay £1,750 for the replacement of the damaged flooring, plus an additional £320 for the removal and disposal of the existing flooring. – Pay compensation based on rent for the period key amenities were unavailable. – Pay compensation for the mental and physical impact. – Complete all outstanding repairs without delay, including addressing the root cause of the damp and mould. – Review its internal procedures regarding communication, complaint handling, and repair scheduling to prevent future instances of delayed or mismanaged repairs. – Apologise for the failures in service delivery and unacceptable delays, miscommunication and the effect on his health and quality of life.
6 February 2026	The resident told the Ombudsman: The landlord did not start works straight away after he was moved to temporary accommodation. It took 3 weeks for the landlord to put a dehumidifier in the property, which was only left for a short amount of time as the property was damp when he moved back in. The landlord had repaired the damp and mould but had not redecorated and there was outstanding damage to the walls, including cracking and flaking paint. The landlord had not completed repairs to the boiler.

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 repairs caused by a leak in the property, including damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs charter (September 2025) states it will respond to emergency repairs, including uncontainable leaks, within 4 hours. The leak occurred on 14 February 2025. The landlord did not provide a copy of the repairs charter that was in place at the time. We have therefore used the more recent policy as an indicator of the landlord’s repairs obligations.
The resident told us that a plumber was on site and attended the leak straight away. The resident said the plumber suggested turning the water supply off in the whole building, but the landlord declined to do so. The landlord has not provided evidence to reflect the plumber’s initial handling of the leak or the suggestion of turning off the water. The lack of records means that the landlord has not demonstrated whether it responded appropriately at this initial stage.
The landlord arranged for the resident to move to temporary accommodation immediately after the leak because of the damage to his property. The resident reported that the landlord did not start works or provide dehumidifiers until around 2 weeks after he had moved out of the property. The repairs records show that the landlord visited the property on 25 February 2025 and identified various works. This supports the resident’s comments that there was an almost 2-week delay in the landlord assessing the damage and identifying repairs. During this visit, the landlord concluded that a further 4 weeks were required for the property to dry out.
Following this visit, the landlord raised an order to supply 2 dehumidifiers to the property. The delay in conducting the inspection therefore meant there was a delay in the drying out process as dehumidifiers were not supplied immediately after the leak.
The resident said the landlord removed the dehumidifiers within 2 weeks. We do not have evidence to confirm when it removed them from the property, which indicates poor record keeping. It is not known whether the landlord removed the dehumidifiers prematurely and therefore whether this caused later problems with the property drying out.
During the period the resident stayed in temporary accommodation, the landlord completed electrical works and repairs to the collapsed bathroom ceiling. Following an inspection on 7 March 2025, the landlord raised a works order to replace part of the hallway ceiling, stating it would not dry out. This supports the resident’s position that the landlord may have removed the dehumidifiers too soon.
The resident moved back into the property on 28 March 2025. It appears that there were outstanding works at this point, including to the hallway ceiling. The landlord has not evidenced that it completed an inspection prior to the resident moving back into the property. Its repairs charter states it aims to provide dry and safe homes for its residents and diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective way. The landlord therefore should have confirmed the property was suitable for the resident to return to and communicated clearly with him about any outstanding repairs. There is no evidence it did so.
After the resident raised his complaint on 8 April 2025, there is no evidence the landlord took any action until it attended on 27 May 2025 to repair the hallway ceiling. This indicates more than 2 months passed between the landlord raising the works order and completing the repairs. It is unclear whether part of this delay was due to the drying out process. However, its repairs charter says ‘lengthy repairs’ such as plaster repairs should be completed within 6 to 20 working days. The evidence therefore indicates the landlord did not act within its own timescales and did not respond promptly when the resident reported damp in the property.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 June 2025 and the repairs notes state that the carpet and walls were wet and a surveyor would attend. In its stage 2 response, the landlord summarised a property inspection but did not provide the inspection date or a copy of the report. The lack of records limits our ability to fully assess the landlord’s investigation and actions or the extent of the damp and mould. The landlord’s summary states that damp was visible in the hallway and bedroom and there was minor mould in the kitchen.
The landlord accepted that essential works in the bedroom and hallway were outstanding, including repairs to address moisture in the walls and redecoration. It concluded that the damp and mould was likely caused by insufficient drying time before redecoration and delays in gaining access. It appropriately acknowledged that it did not provide a dehumidifier initially after the resident’s reports of damp, which was a failing.
The landlord’s comments about delays in gaining access appear to relate to an appointment on 29 May 2025, in which an operative attended and noted that there was too much furniture for damp and mould works to be carried out. The resident said the operative who attended was only there to assess the repair and that no repairs were to be completed that day. This suggests a possible lack of clear communication from the landlord about the purpose of the appointment. There is no evidence that the landlord rescheduled the works following this visit or that there were any additional access issues on other dates. This undermines its explanation for the repair delays.
The landlord identified the outstanding works were stain blocking and redecoration in the bedroom and hallway and a mould wash in the damp areas of the kitchen. It also said it would complete repairs to the hot water unit which were scheduled for 15 July 2025. It is unclear whether this repair was due to damage caused by the leak.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has offered suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord made efforts to put things right by offering the resident £150 for the delays, inconvenience and mismanagement of the repairs.
The resident experienced distress and inconvenience over a 3‑month period because the landlord did not address the damp in a timely manner between his return to the property and the stage 2 response. The resident also spent time reporting the issues to the landlord. The resident described that the issues had a serious impact on his mental health and his concerns about his living conditions during this time. Given the impact on the resident, we have determined that the amount of compensation the landlord offered was insufficient to remedy its failures. We also note the resident’s reports that some of the repairs remain outstanding which indicates ongoing distress and inconvenience.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing repairs following the leak. The overall amount of £450 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident and is sufficient to remedy the failures identified.
The resident told us that the landlord had resolved the damp and mould but had not redecorated and that the walls were in a poor condition. He also said the landlord had not repaired the hot water unit. An internal landlord email from February 2026 states that the landlord inspected the property and completed a mould wash in November 2025 and then raised works to resolve issues with extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom in December 2025. This corroborates the resident’s view that damp and mould issues have been resolved. It is not clear whether the resident’s ongoing concerns about the walls and redecoration have been addressed. An order has therefore also been included for the landlord to contact the resident, update him on the works completed and confirm if there remains any further works that it will now complete to address any ongoing concerns.
The resident also reported that damage was caused to his personal belongings and carpets due to the leak. He said the landlord’s handling of the repairs exacerbated the damage caused by the initial leak. The landlord told the resident that it did not hold liability for personal items and that contents insurance should protect against such losses. However, it offered £200 compensation to assist with the carpet reinstatement, which was reasonable.
It is unclear whether the resident had insurance cover, and if so, whether contents insurance would cover such damage. Contents insurance normally covers the resident’s own belongings against sudden and unexpected events but usually excludes gradual issues like mould. It is not our role to determine liability or to award damages for the resident’s damaged items because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so.
There is no evidence that the landlord requested further details from the resident about the damaged items or that it considered signposting the resident to make a claim through its own liability insurance. Such claims can only be successful where liability is established. Even with liability established, it is not guaranteed that the landlord’s insurance would cover this type of damage. However, given the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the leak resulted in damage to his belongings, it should have gathered information and considered whether a referral to its insurer was appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident and obtain further information about damaged items and consider whether it would be suitable to refer him to its liability insurers.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to shower repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

On 31 March 2025, the resident reported that his shower was not draining. The resident stated an operative attended on 1 April 2025 however, the landlord did not provide records of this visit. The repairs records reflect a plumber attended on 4 April 2025 but was unable to repair the drainage issue.
Following the repairs appointment, there is no evidence that the landlord raised a further works order until 8 May 2025 when the resident complained. The landlord’s repairs charter states it will respond to ‘priority 2’ repairs, including blocked drains, within 24 hours. The landlord therefore failed to respond in accordance with its policy. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not raise follow-on repairs until the resident raised his complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 May 2025 and said that a plumber attended on 12 May 2025 and reiterated the findings of the plumber who had previously attended. The landlord has not provided records of the 12 May 2025 appointment. Following this, a plumber attended on 21 May 2025 and repaired the issue.
The resident therefore did not have a functional shower for over 7 weeks. This was a failing by the landlord to take prompt action in line with its policy and to ensure the resident had suitable bathing facilities.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that in circumstances where there is a loss of bathing facilities, it should provide alternative facilities. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the impact on the resident during this time or considered offering alternative bathing facilities.
The landlord did not consider the shower repairs in its complaint response, despite the resident raising the matter as part of his complaint. It therefore did not offer any redress for the loss of amenity. The failures identified regarding the shower repairs amount to maladministration by the landlord.
The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to being without suitable bathing facilities for an extended period. He told the landlord the issue had a detrimental impact on his health, hygiene and overall wellbeing.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation based on 20% of the rent charged for the period he was without showering facilities. This has been calculated for the period from 31 March 2025 to 21 May 2025. We have used an average rent of £120.85 per week, taken from the Regulator of Social Housing’s average rent calculator tool for general needs social rents in the relevant local authority area. This amounts to £175.
We have also ordered the landlord to pay an additional £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during this period. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and that the landlord failed to acknowledge. The overall amount ordered is considered sufficient to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the loss of showering facilities.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 responses within a further 10 working days. The policy says it will respond to escalation requests in 5 working days and issue stage 2 responses in 20 working days of its acknowledgment.
The resident complained on 8 April 2025. The evidence indicates that the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 April 2025 however, it has not provided evidence of this email to us. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 May 2025 requesting an update on his complaint. On 20 May 2025, the landlord requested a 10-day extension to respond to the complaint which the resident agreed to.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 June 2025 and said he had not received a response from the landlord and wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It is unclear when the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. It issued its stage 2 response on 7 July 2025.
The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its complaints policy. It did not respond within the required timeframes, which resulted in it failing to consider the complaint at stage 1. The delays in the landlord responding to the complaint meant that the resident had to chase it. Further, the landlord’s failure to consider the complaint at stage 1 meant the resident was denied the opportunity to seek a full review of its initial response. Although the resident requested escalation, the landlord’s decision to proceed directly to stage 2 bypassed the opportunity for issues to be identified and resolved earlier. As a result, key matters, such as the omission of any response to the shower issues, were not addressed at the appropriate stage.
The resident incurred time and trouble chasing up the landlord’s response to the complaint and experienced inconvenience due to the delays and the landlord’s failure to consider all aspects of his complaint
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to remedy the impact on the resident of its poor complaint handling. This amount is sufficient to remedy the detriment to the resident and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

The handling of the repairs and complaint indicate a need for learning by the landlord to ensure it responds in line with its policies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that good records will enable a landlord to explain what has happened and ensures that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. The landlord must maintain accurate and complete repair and communication records, including inspection reports and provide these to the Ombudsman. However, the landlord did not provide comprehensive records of the repairs. The landlord should therefore consider learning to improve its record keeping.

Communication

In line with the guidance issued in our Spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. The landlord should provide clear, timely and regular updates, including written action plans after inspections so expectations and next steps are transparent.