London Borough of Islington (202331207)

Background

1. The resident lives with her child in a 2-bedroom split level flat. She and her child have substantial additional needs and the landlord’s records reflect this. She complained about the landlord’s management of repairs related to damp and mould. She escalated her complaint to this Service because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of repairs related to damp, rot and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs related to damp, rot and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to meet its duties to provide a safe and healthy home and did not follow the required timescales in its Damp and Mould Procedure or Repairs Policy, leading to late inspections, cancelled works orders, and duplicated contractor attendance. It did not act with appropriate urgency when the resident reported worsening rain penetration and health concerns, and it took 112 working days to complete essential external repairs. These prolonged delays, poor coordination, and failures in record keeping left the household in damp and unhealthy conditions for an extended period.
7. The landlord met basic complaint‑handling timescales but failed to address the significant delays and service failures shown in over a year of unresolved repairs and 22 works orders. Its stage 1 response offered limited compensation and was procedural in tone, showing little meaningful empathy for the resident’s circumstances. At stage 2, it did not acknowledge any failings and shifted responsibility onto the resident to prove disrepair, rather than addressing the complaint or identifying learning. Overall, the landlord did not demonstrate ownership, proportional redress, learning or meaningful engagement with the resident’s concerns.

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’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.

What we have not considered and why

8. The resident told the landlord that the living situation affected the household’s health. While we do not dispute this, we cannot determine any direct link between the complaint and health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.
9. The resident told this Service that her concerns about damp, rot and mould began in 2012. To ensure fairness, this investigation is limited to the issues that completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 12 June 2025. The resident’s prior reports of damp, rot and mould have been noted to provide background context to the complaint.

10. Under its Damp and Mould Procedure, the landlord must first address any leaks or water‑penetration issues, complete a damp survey within 20 working days if none has been carried out in the previous 6 months, and raise remedial works within 3 working days, prioritising action within either 24 hours or 20 working days depending on severity.
11. If problems remain unresolved after 2 months, the landlord must complete a stage 2 survey within 10 working days, with unresolved cases reviewed at stage 3 by senior officers within a further 10 working days. Its Repairs Guide sets response times ranging from 2 hours for emergencies to 60 working days for complex planned works.
12. The resident reported a recurrence of damp and staining in a recently redecorated bedroom on 16 May 2024. The landlord arranged an initial inspection for 18 June 2024, and a damp survey was carried out on 4 July 2024.
13.  The landlord’s damp survey record noted that the surveyor “was bombarded by the resident with a full outline of past and present history dating back to December 2012” and that the “front bedroom was plastered to satisfy [the] tenant who was convinced there was still mould in the walls.” This Service cannot determine whether the comments were based on objective observations relevant to the survey, or whether they represented subjective opinions that may have influenced the landlord’s assessment of the damp and mould concerns.
14. The survey identified missing render and recommended works requiring scaffolding. The works order was not raised until 23 July 2024, 13 working days after the survey. This was not compliant with the landlord’s Damp and Mould procedure which states works orders must be raised within 3 working days. The landlord’s records state that the resident refused the works on 31 July 2024 and the job was cancelled. The resident’s decision not to book an appointment resulted in delays to the landlord’s ability to carry out the repairs.
15. The records show that the works order was raised again on 4 September 2024. When contractors attended on 11 December 2024, 70 working days later, to erect scaffolding, they found that scaffolding had already been put in place by a different contractor. As a result, the works were placed on hold while the landlord sought clarification about who should complete the repairs. The landlord’s records acknowledge the confusion, stating “two separate teams duplicating work here..!” This indicates shortcomings in the landlord’s internal communication, poor internal coordination, record keeping, and overall management of the repairs. This caused avoidable delay at a point where timely action was important.
16. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2025. She told the landlord the walls were getting increasingly wet because of rain penetration. She emailed her GP the same day and stated she and her child were sleeping in the living room because of the conditions. She expressed concern for their ongoing health, citing fungal infections, diarrhoea, pneumonia requiring hospitalisation, general respiratory problems, poor mental health and muscle pains. These reports indicated a situation that required a prompt and coordinated response.
17. The external works were not completed until 12 February 2025, 112 working days after the September works order was raised. Internal redecoration was scheduled for 25 June 2025. These delays were substantially outside the landlord’s damp and repairs timescales and left the household living in poor conditions for an extended period.
18. The landlord’s records evidence a further damp survey was carried out on 17 February 2025. The survey found no evidence of penetrating damp, with all pin‑meter readings returning dry, and the areas that appeared damp were assessed as condensation‑related due to indoor drying of laundry and closed trickle vents; the loft showed no mould or moisture, insulation was recently replaced, and a small patch of decorative staining was identified on the front bedroom wall.
19. While the resident reported significant and worsening disrepair, some of the descriptions of the extent and impact of the issues appeared to go beyond what was supported by the landlord’s inspection records. However, the landlord did not take the opportunity to engage with these reports in a structured or proactive way, which meant it did not properly assess, respond to, or address the resident’s stated concerns.
20. The evidence overall shows shortcomings in the landlord’s timeliness and its management of the repairs related to damp and mould. This added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience in seeking a resolution to her issue and could not but have further damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
21. In summary, there were prolonged delays throughout the repairs process, including late inspections, cancelled and misallocated works orders, and duplicated contractor attendance. The landlord did not act with appropriate urgency when the resident reported worsening rain penetration and said she and her child were sleeping in the living room. Although her later reports went beyond what was supported by the February 2025 survey, the landlord failed to engage with her concerns in a structured or timely way. It took 112 working days to complete the external works, leaving the household in damp conditions far beyond the landlord’s policy. These delays and coordination failures caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. Cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs related to damp and mould.

22. The landlord’s Complaints Policy complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, requiring acknowledgment within 5 working days and a response within 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 at stage 2. Its Compensation Guidance sets typical awards of £500–£2500 per year for disrepair, £100–£300 for time and trouble, and £100–£300 for distress, rising to £1000 for severe cases.
23. This Service wrote to the landlord on 27 February 2025 following contact from the resident. The resident had told this Service that she had submitted complaints to the landlord on 12 September 2023 and 6 December 2024. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.
24. The landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint in response to our intervention and supplied this Service with copies of its responses issued at stage 1 and 2 to the resident’s complaint of 6 December.
25. The resident submitted a further stage 1 complaint on 3 March 2025 regarding the continued failure to complete repairs, describing the property as uninhabitable. She told the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that the condition of the property was having a serious impact on her household. She said it affected her dignity, caused distress to her and her family, and contributed to health problems that, in her view, prevented her child from attending school full‑time. She described the flat as “a place of terror”. She requested substantial compensation for distress, time and trouble, and damaged belongings. This placed the landlord on notice that the resident considered the issues to be urgent and significantly affecting her daily life.
26. In its 6 March 2025 stage 1 response, the landlord upheld the complaint, acknowledged delays to the roof works, and offered compensation. However, while the landlord recognised elements of its service failure, the compensation offered was limited in the context of the length of delay and the overall impact on the resident. The evidence therefore shows that although the landlord made some attempts to put things right, its response did not fully reflect the extent of the shortcomings identified.
27. The response, while containing standard apologies, was largely procedural and focused on repair history and process limitations. It did not acknowledge the impact of the prolonged delays on the resident and her child or reflect on the landlord’s part in the missed and duplicated works. It emphasised what could not be investigated rather than offering reassurance about next steps, and it did not identify any learning or improvement. As a result, the tone appeared defensive and did not demonstrate the empathy or ownership expected under the Complaint Handling Code.
28. The landlord escalated the matter appropriately when the resident sent further information by email on 12 May 2025, issuing a stage 2 response within policy timeframes.
29. However, the stage 2 response did not acknowledge the extensive delays or the impact of poor conditions in the property, which had required 22 works orders raised over the course of more than a year. It maintained that there were no service failures and that the stage 1 compensation offered was sufficient. It also said that the resident had to prove the disrepair, what it caused, and any resulting harm. This shifted responsibility onto the resident, failed to address the substance of her complaint, and showed no learning from the issues raised.
30. In summary, the landlord met some procedural requirements by acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaints within the timescales set out in its Complaints Policy. However, it failed to recognise or address the significant delays and service shortcomings evident from the repair history, despite intervening contact from this Service and the resident’s repeated attempts to raise concerns. Its stage 1 response did not offer compensation proportionate to the length and impact of the delays, and its stage 2 response did not acknowledge any service failures. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had fully considered the resident’s circumstances and substantial additional needs, nor did it identify learning from the complaint. It showed little meaningful empathy for the resident’s situation and the complaints process did not resolve or improve the resident’s dissatisfaction with her living conditions.
31. Taken together, these failings amount to maladministration in the landlord’s complaints management.

Learning

32. The findings show that the landlord needs to strengthen its approach to managing damp and mould cases by ensuring full compliance with its procedures and relevant legislation.
33. Its complaint handling should more accurately reflect service failures, offer proportionate redress, and demonstrate learning from the issues raised.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication.

34. The evidence shows weaknesses in internal communication and record keeping, including duplicated contractor attendance and confusion about responsibility for works, indicating the need for clearer coordination between teams.