London Borough of Islington (202327699)

Background

1. The resident expressed concerns that conditions in the basement were causing damp and mould throughout her property. She disclosed several medical issues to the landlord during the complaint process including sinus congestion, shortness of breath, and severe allergic reactions.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord surveyed the property on several occasions and completed multiple repairs. However, it did not evidence that it explored the reasons for high humidity in the basement or considered the subsequent impact on the property. It also failed to fully evidence its communication with the resident regarding the issues.

The complaint

6. The landlord did not identify the resident’s emails from November 2023 as a formal complaint. This caused a delay in its response.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

7. The resident told the landlord that her living conditions had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response in April 2024. The resident contacted this Service in May 2024, November 2025, December 2025, and February 2026 to express further concerns. This included but is not limited to noise transmission, concerns about the Energy Performance Certificate, the location of the gas meter, external moss growth, and the communal entrance not meeting her needs. She also reported that the damp and mould was unresolved.
9. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to complaints about matters occurring after it issued its final complaint response. It is open to the resident to contact it about more recent events, and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if she is unhappy with the way it responds.
10. This report focuses on the events leading up to the resident’s initial complaint in November 2023, and the landlord’s complaint responses of February and April 2024.

What we have considered

11. The landlord arranged for a surveyor following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 29 August 2023. While the attendance on 13 September 2023 was 1 working day outside the landlord’s 10‑day target, the delay was minimal and did not amount to an unreasonable failure.
12. The surveyor’s investigation on 13 September 2023 was thorough. They took moisture readings and assessed potential structural issues. They concluded the likely cause to be condensation resulting from inadequate ventilation rather than penetrating or rising damp. The surveyor provided clear recommendations to the landlord.
13. The mould wash completed on 10 November 2023 fell outside the landlord’s 20‑working day routine repair timeframe. This constituted a failure to meet its service standard.
    However, the delay does not appear excessive in the context of the overall case, and it ultimately completed the work.
14. Between October 2023 and April 2024, the landlord undertook inspections and remedial actions, including:

• a downpipe clearance
• a structural inspection
• party wall repairs
• plastering and repainting
• multiple damp surveys
• replacement and overhaul of an extractor fan
• repeated mould treatment

15. These visits demonstrate that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and continued to investigate her concerns. It found no structural defects relating to damp. The recurring conclusion that the issue was condensation was supported by moisture readings and inspections. It was entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors.
16. Except for the delay to the mould wash, the landlord acted within its published timescales for routine or planned repairs. The work orders raised were reasonable and consistent with professional advice. It conducted investigations over an extended period, indicating a proactive approach.
17. No surveys identified structural damp, water ingress, or rot. The landlord also acted on newly identified issues such as a defective downpipe. This shows appropriate responsiveness and follow‑through. It is not unusual with cases of damp and mould to require several visits to resolve the issues.
18. Within the resident’s complaint, she reported damage to her belongings. The landlord acted appropriately by directing her to make a claim via contents insurance. It also provided details for its own liability insurance, should she deem it responsible for the loss or damage caused. This was in line with its complaints policy.
19. The landlord did not evidence all its communication with the resident during the complaint period. The lack of a clear audit trail makes it difficult to confirm whether it kept the resident adequately informed about the status of repairs, its findings, or next steps. This was a failing in the landlord’s communication and record keeping.
20. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for clarity about its responsibilities for the basement, including lighting and safer access. It is good practice for a landlord to answer reasonable enquiries about its obligations within its complaint responses. Failing to do so left this resident without essential information. This is another example of poor communication.
21. After the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in April 2024, the resident continued to report poor ventilation in the basement and ongoing damp and mould in her home. Even though the landlord visited several times, completed more repairs, and conducted more surveys, the main issue appeared unresolved.
22. We note that the first survey in September 2023 found high humidity in the basement (over 80%) and recommended improving ventilation. Later inspections also noted “sub‑optimal ventilation” within the property. Despite this, the landlord has not shown whether it considered how the conditions in the basement might be affecting the rest of the home. It also did not show evidence of exploring options to reduce humidity in the basement.
23. Overall, while the landlord conducted inspections and completed various repairs within the property, it did not evidence that it addressed the high humidity levels identified on several occasions. In addition, it did not demonstrate clear communication with the resident correspond to her request for information about its responsibilities for the basement. Taken altogether, this has resulted in a failure finding. We have made an order for it to pay compensation within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
24. We have notified the landlord that the resident’s recent correspondence with us indicates there could be a hazard in the property which may fall under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It is for the landlord to consider this and respond to the resident directly, in line with its statutory obligations.

25. Under the current Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. The landlord’s current complaint policy aligns with the Code’s requirements.
26. The resident first raised her complaint in November 2023. At this time, an earlier version of the Code applied. Compliance with the updated statutory Code did not become mandatory until April 2024.
27. At stage 1, the landlord referred to the resident’s correspondence of 20 February 2024 as her initial complaint. However, emails between the resident and landlord dated 9 and 13 November 2023 clearly express her dissatisfaction and concerns about conditions in her home. It failed to identify and log the resident’s November 2023 correspondence as a formal complaint, despite the content meeting the definition of a complaint. This resulted in a delay of over 2 months before it addressed her concerns. This was not in line with its policy and represents a shortcoming in its complaint handling.
28. The landlord explained that it introduced a new complaints case‑management system at the beginning of 2024. It provided a screenshot confirming that it sent an automated acknowledgement, though it was unable to extract a copy of the communication issued to the resident. It said it has since resolved this issue.
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and issued its stage 2 response within the timescales set out in its policy. Its stage 2 complaint handling met the required standard.
30. Overall, the landlord’s failure to recognise and act upon the resident’s initial complaint caused avoidable delay and likely frustration to her. We have therefore awarded compensation in line with our guidance.

Learning

General learning

31. Where residents raise safety concerns and health vulnerabilities, the landlord ought to explore whether a risk assessment is appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord should ensure it captures sufficient information within its records to evidence its interactions with residents. It may wish to review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

33. The landlord did not evidence effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It could consider accessing our free Centre for Learning and reviewing our training videos for landlords on the importance of clear communication.