London Borough of Hounslow (202503006)

Decision
Case ID	202503006
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hounslow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has said it did not have any vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems. However, the landlord’s records show the resident told it that she had cancer, which she was receiving chemotherapy for.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould in her property.
   2. A water leak in her kitchen.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water leak in her kitchen.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of damp and mould

7. The landlord acknowledged some of its failures and offered the resident compensation. However, we have found additional failures by it that it did not recognise:
   1. Failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities which it was aware of. There is no evidence that it acted to support the resident after she had reported to it that her health had worsened due to damp and mould in her property.
   2. There is no evidence that it completed all the repair works recommended by an independent expert surveyor. It also did not provide the resident with a breakdown of repair works or a timeline for it completing them.
   3. The repair works that the landlord did complete took significantly longer than its target timescale. There is no record that the landlord has resolved the issue, and the resident has reported that damp and mould is still present in her property.

Response to reports of a water leak

8. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the cause of the leak to the resident’s kitchen roof, despite being made aware of this by an independent expert surveyor’s report. When it raised some repairs for her kitchen roof, it did not complete this repair within the timeframe of its repairs policy.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord did not meet the timescales set out in its complaint’s policy to provide the resident with its response at both stages. It did not provide her with a response to all the issues she raised with it when she escalated her complaint.

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 provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It provides the resident with an explanation as to why it did not implement all the recommendations of the independent expert surveyor. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 November 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £1,400 made up as follows:   £250 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould repairs. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of kitchen roof repairs following a leak. £50 for its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 November 2025
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of her property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the kitchen roof and ceiling. assesses the damp and mould reported by the resident. It must produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. the most likely cause of the damp and mould and whether it has repaired the kitchen roof satisfactorily so that it will no longer leak. whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work. whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 26 November 2025
4	Starting the works   The landlord must take all steps to ensure the damp and mould works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 26 November 2025
5	Recording the resident’s vulnerabilities   The landlord must ensure that it records the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems and update its records accordingly so it can take them into consideration when responding to her, in line with its policies, it must provide evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 26 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The resident told the landlord she did not want it to decorate her kitchen as the paint would not match her colour scheme. We recommend that the landlord considers providing the resident with paint that matches her colour scheme or a decorating allowance so she can purchase this herself.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 July 2024	The resident raised her complaint to the landlord. She said: Her property had leaked for years when it rained. It had failed to complete repairs to her property and remove mould in her kitchen and hallway. Her doctor had said she had a fungal infection caused from mould in her lungs. She had suffered for years in the property, and the presence of mould had made her health conditions worse. She wanted it to address the mould problem as soon as possible, once and for all. It should replace her kitchen cupboards to make sure they were free from mould.
23 August 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It completed a repair to her roof on 7 August 2024, after she had contacted it on 22 July 2024, to report a leak. It did not have any previous reports of a roof leak on its systems. Its healthy homes team had visited her property on 14 May 2024 to carry out a treatment to her kitchen. It removed and reinstated the kitchen units to treat the affected areas. It had arranged for its healthy homes team to visit her property again on 18 July 2024. However, she was not home that day, so it rearranged this for 9 August 2024. Following this visit it raised repairs to her kitchen to: Seal the kitchen ceiling, walls and bedroom ceiling, apply a mould wash and redecorate. Renew the silicone sealant around a kitchen unit. It arranged to inspect her kitchen cupboards on 22 July 2024, but she was unavailable. It rearranged this visit for 31 July 2024, where it agreed it would replace several kitchen base unit doors on 8 and 9 August 2024. However, she was unavailable, so it changed this appointment to 27 August 2024. It upheld her complaint, as it should have raised an inspection of her unit after it inspected her property on 18 July 2024. Although it inspected her roof on 22 July 2024, this was after she had contacted it. It apologised for the inconvenience it had caused her and offered her £50 compensation.
02/10/2024	The resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: She was shocked that it had said she had not reported faults with her kitchen before July 2024. The damp and mould had affected her for 2 years and as a result she sought the help of a solicitor. Unfortunately, even after this it had not carried out the correct works. It had repaired half of the kitchen but did not touch her bedroom. Although it had agreed to redecorate the affected areas, it was unable to do so as it still had not fixed the damp and leak. On 3 July 2024 she started coughing up a brown substance. Her doctor told her this was mould in her lungs due to overexposure to it. Her availability for repair visits was impeded by hospital visits, counselling sessions or weakness due to the medication she had to take. The kitchen roof was leaking again and there was a visible damp patch. It had not completed the list of repair jobs her solicitor had sent it. She was receiving counselling sessions for the stress and anxiety the situation had caused her. A lymph node was discovered in her lungs when checking the damage from the mould spores. This has caused her distress. A mouse infestation was affecting the whole block of flats. Although it had put traps down the problem was getting worse
07/11/2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It acknowledged that she had reported a leak from her roof dating back to April 2021. It apologised that it did not reassure her it would investigate her concerns about the leak being ongoing, after it completed a roof repair on 7 August 2024. It would liaise with her to find suitable times and dates for it to carry out repairs, after she had told it the reasons why she could not keep previous appointments. It had arranged an inspection of her property for 7 November 2024 to establish what “agreed disrepair works” were outstanding. It would also identify and raise other repairs that fell outside the agreed disrepair works. It acknowledged the impact of damp and mould on her health. It would continue to work with her to remedy and treat the issue. It had taken steps to remedy damp and mould in her property after every report she made of the issue. It should have raised follow-on repairs after its visit to complete roof repairs on 7 August 2024 and apologised for this delay. It could find no evidence that it contacted her to cancel its appointment to redecorate areas in her property on 27 August 2024. It was sorry for the incorrect information it provided about this. It was not its procedure to colour match paint when it redecorates properties. However, if she had a similar coloured paint available it would redecorate the areas with this. Although her concerns about pest control were not part of her stage 1 complaint, it had scheduled its pest control team to visit her property on 13 November 2024. It offered her a further £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 23 April 2025. She said: The landlord had visited her property almost every month due to leaks and damp and mould at her property, that it hadn’t resolved. Her mental health had been affected because it hadn’t resolved the repairs and all she wanted was a dry and warm home. The landlord had repaired her bathroom and hallway to a good standard. It painted the kitchen, but the mould had returned. She wanted the landlord to pay her compensation and review why it was unable to resolve the issue. She wanted the landlord to the landlord to install new radiators throughout her property. She wanted the landlord to provide an apology from its officer who dealt with her complaint.

What we found and why

10. 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	Damp and mould
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we did not investigate

11. The resident raised concerns about the impact on her health. While the Ombudsman empathises, health-related claims are best addressed by the courts, where independent medical experts and oral testimony can be properly considered. We can consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.
12. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, this Service will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, our determination and any associated remedies would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.

What we did investigate

13. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time.’ This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
14. The landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment says it will identify any vulnerable residents who it may need to move to temporary housing where it needs to complete extensive repairs.
15. The landlord’s evidence shows an independent expert completed a survey of the resident’s property on 8 June 2023, as part of a legal disrepair claim the resident had brought against it. The settlement her solicitor put to the landlord on 18 September 2023, was for it to pay damages and to complete the repair works suggested by the independent expert’s report. The resident’s solicitor confirmed to her on 26 April 2024 that the matter was concluded. The resident told us that this claim was settled before court proceedings began. As the courts did not consider the matter, we are able to investigate this element of the complaint.
16. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it contacted the resident to discuss the next steps following the settlement of the disrepair claim. Although its records show it combined the repairs the independent surveyor had recommended into 1 repair job, there is no record that it told the resident of this. This was not reasonable, and it should have considered providing her with a breakdown of the repairs it intended to complete, along with a clear timeline for them.
17. The landlord completed a repair visit to the resident’s property on 9 February 2024. Its records show this job was titled “disrepair case” and all the works per the independent surveyor’s report were “to be supervised and signed off on post inspection within 56 days. “It is unclear if it told the resident of its planned timeframe for completing its repairs. Its records show that it arranged 15 further repair visits under the same job number between 4 March and 19 November 2024, when its surveyor noted the “disrepair complete.” It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it raised this repair job. However, it was 199 working days from its first repair visit to its surveyor saying the repairs were complete. This was 143 working days over the timeframe it set out in its repair records to complete the work. There is no record that it explained the reasons for the delay with the resident. This was not reasonable and a failure by it to follow its statutory obligations to complete a repair within a reasonable amount of time.
18. The landlord’s records show the resident told it she had been diagnosed with cancer on 9 December 2021, 14 April 2023, 11 July 2024, and 2 October 2024. However, there is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it took her vulnerabilities into consideration or made any adjustments to the service it provided her such as flexible appointment times or prioritising the repairs. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its repairs policy which says vulnerable tenants need extra consideration and support in the delivery of services.
19. We acknowledge that the landlord had difficulties accessing the resident’s property. However, there is no record it gave the resident advance notice of its repair visits or that it considered if it needed to temporarily move her, due to her health issues. This was a record keeping failure and it has not demonstrated it followed the action set out in its damp and mould self-assessment.
20. When the resident raised her complaint, she told the landlord that she had been coughing up a black substance. Her doctor said that she had a fungal infection and mould on her lungs. However, there is no record that the landlord acted with any urgency to investigate the issue further at this point, which was not reasonable. When she escalated her complaint, she told it the issue was affecting her mental health, and she had anxiety and depression. Its stage 2 response said it understood the impact the repair issues had on her health, and it took the welfare of its residents’ seriously. However, there is no record that it acted to support her welfare other than its healthy homes visit. This was unreasonable and its failure significantly damaged trust in the landlord/tenant relationship.
21. The landlord failed to maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. The evidence shows on 17 July 2024 she provided it with a letter from the hospital which confirmed she had been diagnosed with mould on her lungs, which also asked it to provide her with support. Despite this, there is no record that the landlord acted on this or provided her with regular updates on its repairs, and she had to spend time chasing it for information and progress. These communication failures worsened the situation, increased the impact on her, and further damaged the relationship between the parties. It was also a failure to follow its repairs policy which says it will provide an excellent service and is responsive to residents’ needs. This was unreasonable given her health issues and would have caused her unnecessary distress.
22. Despite the landlord’s repair records saying it would complete all repairs the independent expert surveyor recommended, there is no record that it raised the following repairs:
    1. Replace the plasterboard in the bedroom and redecorate, as a water leak in her bedroom was likely to be from the flat above hers.
    2. Service the boiler to ensure it heated the property adequately.
    3. Reduce the ceiling height in the property or replace the radiators as they were undersized and did not heat the property adequately.
    4. Replace the rotten soffits and fascia.
    5. Repoint brickwork as there were holes in the walls around the pipes.
    6. Install an extractor fan in the bathroom.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 response arranged for it to inspect her property so it could identify what repairs from the independent experts survey it still needed to complete. This was reasonable as a remedy to resolve the repair issues. Its inspection found it needed to overhaul the kitchen extractor fan, clear the kitchen roof and gutter, repoint around a window and check the pipework in the flat above hers. It also recorded there was high humidity in the property but no damp penetration. However, there is no record that it raised or completed these repairs. This is a concern given the seriousness of the issue and was a record keeping failure.
24. The resident has told us that the landlord completed repairs to her hallway and bathroom to a good standard. It had fitted new radiators in her property, per the independent surveyor’s recommendations. However, it is unclear why it did not complete all the repairs the expert surveyor recommended to resolve the issue, despite its repair records saying it would do this.  This was unreasonable.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised the distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident, along with its delays in completing repairs and its poor communication with her. It offered her £250 compensation in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration, although it is unclear if this was for both substantive issues or just the damp and mould. While this went someway to address its failures, we do not consider this was proportionate considering the additional failures we have found. There were excessive delays in the landlord’s repairs which significantly impacted on the resident, despite it knowing of her serious health issues.
26. After completing its complaints process, the landlord’s records do not show that it had resolved the issue, and the resident has told us that the damp and mould in her property is still present. We have ordered the landlord to increase the compensation it offered the resident to recognise the continued distress and inconvenience after its stage 2 response, and the loss of enjoyment of her home due to the damp and mould. With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a further £1000 compensation for her distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises the significant impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident.
27. We have also ordered the landlord to complete all damp and mould repair work at the property, and to explain why if it cannot do so. It should confirm if suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.

Complaint	Kitchen leak
Finding	Maladministration

32. The independent expert’s survey on 8 June 2023 noted that there had been a leak from the resident’s kitchen roof. The survey did not provide a recommendation to the landlord on repairing the leak. Nevertheless, given that a leak had been found, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out an investigation. However, there is no record that the landlord investigated the cause of the leak following this, until it raised a repair job on 22 July 2024 following the resident reporting that her kitchen roof was leaking. This was not reasonable, as the resident would have expected it to have acted to resolve the leak after it received expert surveyor’s report. Had it done so it may have been able to resolve the issue at an earlier stage.
33. There is no record that the landlord investigated the leak until the resident contacted it on 22 July 2024. Its records show it visited her property on 7 August 2024 to reseal the flashing on her roof. This was 9 working days over the published timeframe in its repair policy to complete such repairs withing 3 working days, which was a failure to follow the obligations of its repairs policy.
34. The landlord’s stage 1 response considered the leak to the resident’s roof. Its response indicates that its healthy homes visit on 14 May 2024 considered the damp and mould in the kitchen but does not mention what it did in relation to the leak. The fact that it completed the kitchen roof repair after the resident reported this to it on 22 July 2024, supports the view that its visit on 14 May 2024 did not investigate the leak. This was not reasonable as it was a further 3 months before it said it completed a repair to the kitchen roof.
35. Although the landlord’s complaint responses said it completed roof repair works at the resident’s property on 7 August 2024, its inspection of her property on 15 August 2024 found that her kitchen ceiling was still leaking. The landlord’s records show the resident confirmed to it on 5 September 2024 that it had completed its repairs to the kitchen. However, there is no record that it confirmed this itself, which is a concern.
36. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that it should have provided the resident with reassurance that it would continue to investigate her concerns about the roof leak. It apologised that it did not do this. While this went someway to address its failures, we do not consider this was proportionate considering the additional failures we have found and that it took it 15 months to repair the leak. This was unreasonable and failure to follow its statutory obligations.
37. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her £100 compensation in recognition of the impact of its failings in its handling of her report of a leak in her kitchen. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the resident’s kitchen roof and ceiling to confirm that the leak has been fully repaired.

 

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

42. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2after it has acknowledged a complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its published timeframe which was reasonable. However, its stage 1 and stage 2 responses were 18 and 2 working days over its published timeframe, respectively. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.  Although its stage 1 response apologised for this delay, its stage 2 did not.
43. The landlord’s stage 1 response told the resident that it had no records of her previously reporting a leak to her kitchen roof. However, its repair records show that the resident had reported a leak on 28 April, 29 June and 9 July 2021. This was a failure by it to follow its complaints policy which says it will consider all relevant information and evidence carefully. However, its stage 2 apologised for its failure which was reasonable.
44. It was positive that the landlord’s stage 2 response considered the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the block of flats where she lived, despite this issue not being part of her original complaint. It arranged for its pest control to visit her property which was reasonable.
45. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said she was unhappy that even after she had sought the help of a solicitor, the landlord had still not carried out the correct repair works to her property. The landlord did not address this concern, which was a missed opportunity to provide her with an explanation why it had not completed all the recommended repairs of the independent expert surveyor. This was not reasonable and is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
46. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord’s decorating works would not colour match the existing decoration in her kitchen. Its stage 2 response said that it was not its procedure to colour match paint and that its healthy homes team had told her of this. However, it is unclear which procedure it was referring to. Although it said it would decorate her kitchen its response indicates that she would need to provide the paint. It could have considered being more flexible with its remedy by offering to redecorate in a matching colour, without her having to provide the paint. Had it done so it would have gone some way to resolving the issue to her satisfaction, in line with our dispute resolution principles.
47. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for minor failures which do not reflect the detriment to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her £50 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
48. We have ordered the landlord to record the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems, so it can consider them when it responds to her. We have also recommended that it considers providing the resident with paint that matches her colour scheme or a decorating allowance so she can purchase this herself.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

49. The landlord failed to record the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems. This seriously impacted on the resident and its response to the repair issues she raised with it.

Communication

50. The landlord’s communication was not effective. One of the resident’s main concerns was her health conditions that she repeatedly told it about. The landlord’s records show it was aware of her health conditions, so it should have paid due regard to these when communicating with the resident.