London Borough of Islington (202411101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411101

Islington Council

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of mice infestation.
2. Request for repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2017. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette.
At the time of the complaint the resident lived at the property with her daughter. Her son was receiving end of life care and she was making regular visits to the hospital. Her daughter has asthma and was using an inhaler on a “daily basis.”
The resident has appointed a representative to act on her behalf. For the purposes of this report the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident.’
An internal email dated 5 May 2023 shows that the resident had previously raised a disrepair claim while repairs for the property were managed by its managing agent. The resident was paid compensation. The case was closed due to issues with access and passed to the landlord’s damp and mould team. It agreed to reopen the case and would liaise with the resident’s solicitors as per her request.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord carried out a disrepair survey which identified issues relating to:
1. The front entrance door.
2. An “old disused tap type of service valve” beneath the sink.
3. Damp in the bedrooms.
Having issued a stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022 the landlord subsequently issued a stage 2 complaint response on 26 May 2023. It confirmed that responsibility for repairs had moved from the managing agent back to the landlord. However, due to “poor records” it was unable to confirm if all previous works agreed under the managing agent were completed. It therefore upheld the complaint and offered £1,100 compensation comprised of:
1. £500 for “possible” outstanding works.
2. £300 for “poor” record keeping.
3. £300 for time and trouble.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord raised works orders in relation to the front door, pipe under the sink, drainage, damp and mould.
During October 2023 the resident’s councillor emailed the landlord on her behalf to ask that it address an ongoing issue with damp and mould. It replied on 20 October 2023 to advise that it was due to carry out drainage and damp works the following day.
On 8 November 2023 the councillor emailed the landlord to advise that a mould treatment was carried out but that the mould had returned and rainwater was coming through the vent. They reported that the wall was “wet.” The drainage team had attended but were only on site for 5 minutes.
During November 2023 the landlord experienced difficulties gaining access to the property.
On 3 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that a number of repairs remained outstanding. The main points being:
1. The front door was “tilted” and not locking properly. Changes to the hinges had not resolved the issue.
2. She did not have a key to the communal meter box which should have been provided when she moved in.
3. Black mould in the property “significantly” impacted her and her family’s wellbeing, especially her daughter.
4. There were 3 holes in the external drainage pipe which was not working effectively. There was water damage on the external wall.
5. An old pipe needed to be removed from underneath the sink and the kitchen floor was uneven.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024, as follows:
1. On 9 January 2024 a works order was raised for the communal front door coming off its hinges. Its operative attended on the same day and reportedly fixed the top and bottom hinges to allow the door to operate.
2. It had asked the tenancy team to contact the resident regarding the key to the communal meter box.
3. A stage 3 mould wash was carried out in the bathroom on 21 October 2023.
4. A works order to carry out a diagnostic damp assessment was raised on 25 October 2023. However, it was unable to get access when it attended on 14 November 2023. It had asked its legal repair team to update the resident on the scope of works.
5. On 31 January 2024 a works order was raised for drain blockages and to upgrade works for utility hole covers and defects. This was initially attended on 22 February 2024 however works were postponed due to “scheduling unavailability with concerned resident.” On 5 February 2024 the landlord scoped out the works and a quote was referred for approval. It attended on 19 March 2024 however it was unable to gain access.
6. It had made enquiries about works to the kitchen pipe and floor however, in the interim it asked the housing team to contact the resident and raise an inspection.
7. The complaint was not upheld. This was because following its previous investigation at stage 2 and repair referral to its legal team it had contacted the resident to progress works. No further or new issues had been raised.
On 16 May 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint because the landlord had not provided any further updates.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 June 2024, the main points being:
1. Although no new issues were reported, it could not find evidence to justify the time it had taken to resolve the repairs. For this reason it did not arrive at the right decision at stage 1.
2. It apologised that repairs “took so long to resolve.”
3. It was not uncommon for roofing works and leaks to take time to resolve however, it acknowledged that communication could help to reduce anxiety and manage expectations. It believed this could have been managed better.
4. It offered £600 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £499.92 rounded up to £500 for the length of time taken to complete repairs during May 2023 to May 2024.
  2. £100 for inconvenience.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 17 June 2024 the resident contacted us to request that we investigate her complaint. She said the drainage had been resolved but that the damp and mould were ongoing which was impacting on her and her daughter’s health. The complaint became one we could investigate on 7 January 2025.
An internal landlord email dated 6 December 2024 asked for a telephone call to be made to the resident who was in “mental distress” about the mould in the property. It asked for urgent assistance as the resident “seemed to be at breaking point.”
The landlord’s response to us received on 19 December 2024 said it had been unable to contact the resident about the repairs. It cold called at the property but there was no access. A letter was also hand delivered requesting the resident make contact. It said that if this failed it would consider issuing an access injunction. As at that time the issue of damp and mould had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
When the resident contacted us on 19 December 2024 she said that although the landlord’s complaint response did not relate to mice infestation it was part of her complaint. A previous stage 2 and final response issued by the landlord on 26 May 2023 did cover pest infestation. However, the resident did not contact us about this element of her complaint until 17 June 2024 which was over 12 months later.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s response to her reports of mice infestation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the resident did not raise her complaint about the issue to us until after 12 months.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s Damp and Mould Procedure says that:
1. Any recommended works will be raised within 3 working days of a damp survey being carried out.
2. Remedial works deemed to be a hazard are those which are “serious and urgent” are to be carried out within 24 hours of the surveyor raising the works.
3. Remedial works deemed to be a hazard which are less serious or less urgent are to be carried out within 20 working days.
Its Housing Repairs Guide states that it aims to respond to routine repairs within 20 working days and to planned repairs within 60 working days.
Its Complaints Policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of registration and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Its Compensation Guidance states that it will pay between £500 to £2500 compensation for disrepair issues. It will also consider paying compensation for time, trouble, and distress.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.

On 5 June 2023 the landlord raised a routine 20 working day works order for repairs including:
1. Rehang the communal front door.
2. Remove redundant stop cock from under the kitchen sink.
3. Hack off the plaster in bedroom 2, prepare the background and redecorate.
4. Remove the old passive vent and make good the walls including damage below a vent. Hack off plaster on the window wall and chimney breast, prepare the background and redecorate.
5. Hack off the plaster, prepare the background and redecorate an area of damp opposite the toilet in the bathroom.
6. Clean a blocked drain run from the porch to the bathroom by pressure jet, remove and refix manhole covers and gratings. Supply and fit an ‘ACO’ drain gully. Supply and fit a grate to a gap in the base of the porch.
On 12 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident to advise that it had been appointed to carry out the works. It had made an appointment to visit on 21 July 2023 to scope out works and agree a start date. On 28 July 2023 it wrote to the resident again to confirm a start date of 14 August 2023.
We have not seen any evidence relating to the visit of 21 July 2023 or to any attempts by the contractor to commence works on 14 August 2023. This is a record keeping failure.
A repairs entry dated 8 September 2023 notes that the landlord was unable to gain access to inspect the drainage on that day. Other than the drainage there is no evidence that it attempted to progress any of the works set out above.
Its inaction caused distress, time and trouble to the resident who contacted a charity about her ongoing issues. On 19 October 2023 the charity emailed the resident’s councillor to escalate the issues on her behalf. It reported that there was “black and orange mould” in the bedrooms and bathroom.
The resident had underlying health conditions. Her daughter was receiving support from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). The resident has said that since moving into the property her daughter developed asthma and was using an inhaler “every day.” They were both sleeping in the lounge to escape the mould in their bedrooms. The resident’s son was in intensive care and she was making regular visits to the hospital.
The Councillor forwarded the email to the landlord on the same day to raise the issue. The landlord replied, again on the same day, to say it had asked for a priority inspection.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it attended the following day, 20 October 2023, to carry out a stage 3 mould wash. It also attended that same day to carry out an inspection for damp and mould and “any other repairs.” The landlord subsequently raised 20 working day works orders for the drainage, bedrooms and bathroom.
The landlord’s response to the email was positive. However, the repairs were originally identified in May 2023 therefore the landlord’s delay was inappropriate. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the evidence relating to the impact the ongoing damp and mould had on the health and wellbeing of the resident and her daughter. The landlord’s response failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.
On 25 October 2023 the landlord raised a 20 working day works order for its surveyor to attend to carry out a damp assessment in the bedrooms, bathroom and hallway. It is unclear why a further visit was required after the one carried out on 20 October 2023.
An internal email shows that the drainage works were chased on 3 November 2023. A further email dated 7 November 2023 requested works be booked in, advising that internal works could not be progressed until this was completed. A subsequent email confirmed that the contractor had attended site to carry out works but could not gain access.
There is no evidence that the resident or her solicitor were notified of the appointment which was inappropriate. On 14 November 2023 the job was raised again with a different contractor. An internal email asked that the works be carried out “urgently” due to it being a legal repair.
It is unclear why it took between 26 May 2023 to 7 November 2023 for the landlord to book in the drainage works. The delay of over 5 months was unreasonable and well outside of its 20 working day target. Furthermore, the delay had a knock on effect on the internal works to remedy the damp and mould. This was inappropriate, particularly considering the impact on the health of the resident and her family.
On 8 November 2023 the resident’s councillor emailed the landlord to report that despite a mould wash being carried out the damp had returned. Rainwater was coming through the vent and the wall was wet. Someone attended in relation to the drainage on 21 October 2023 but was only on site for 5 minutes.
An internal email dated 17 November 2023 sought an update on the drainage works.
An internal email dated 24 November 2023 stated that its surveyor had tried to visit to inspect the ongoing damp issue. However, the resident had declined to provide access on the grounds the matter was being dealt with by its legal disrepair team. This investigation has not been provided with any ‘live’ evidence, such as a file note, of the discussion with the resident which is a record keeping failure.
On 1 December 2023 a further email confirmed it had attended on 28 November and on 4 December 2023 another email confirmed it had chased the contractor for a quote.
A ‘quotation card’ dated 28 November 2023 says the contractor attended the property to inspect the drainage. They did not gain access to the property but were able to identify works required. On 4 December 2023 they provided the landlord with a quote for works. This was over 6 months since the works were originally identified.
An internal email dated 8 December 2023 notes that a contractor attended the property to complete internal works. However, the resident asked them to leave because the drainage works needed to be completed first. As set out above the landlord had already established that to be the case and therefore the appointment caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to her. It confirmed that it was experiencing difficulties trying to get access to complete the drainage works but would keep trying the resident. A further email notes that this remained the case on 28 December 2023 when the phone number for the resident was checked.
From as early as October 2023 the landlord was aware that the resident had a child in intensive care and was making frequent visits to the hospital. There is no evidence that it took this into account and considered trying other methods to contact her such as email, letter or via her solicitor. Its response lacked empathy which was further evidence of its lack of understanding of the impact of situation on the resident.
When the contractor spoke to the resident on or around 18 January 2024 she asked to put the drainage works on hold due to the situation with her child. She was “very upset and distraught” and it asked for advice on how to proceed. On 31 January 2024 the landlord closed the job due to it being put on hold.
The resident’s circumstances were complex and distressing for her. It was therefore understandable that she might wish to put works on hold. However, it is unclear whether she indicated how long she wished to put them hold for which is a record keeping failure.
Given the risk to health posed by the mould it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered how it might sensitively support the resident to allow works to continue. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident to discuss this or considered other options, such as liaising with other agencies, which was a failure.
On 5 February 2024 the landlord raised a further 20 working day works order for the drainage works. The reason for this is unclear which is a record keeping failure.
On 6 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for help trying to contact her housing officer to discuss the outstanding repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. An internal email dated 7 March 2023 said the resident had called to chase the repairs.
An internal email dated 20 March 2024 stated that the landlord was trying to contact the resident to arrange access to carry out drainage repairs in the external basement area that could only be accessed through the property. It noted that she was not currently at the property. However there is no evidence that, given the resident’s circumstances, it considered how it might support with the issue of access in the resident’s absence.
In her stage 1 complaint of 3 April 2024 the resident said that despite works to the hinges the issue with the door was unresolved. In its stage 1 complaint response of 24 April 2024 the landlord advised that it attended in January 2024. It did not comment on the resident’s ongoing concerns and failed to progress the matter towards a potential resolution. This was inappropriate compounding the resident’s distress.
Its stage 1 complaint response said it had asked the tenancy team to contact the resident regarding a key for the communal meter box. However it is unclear whether contact was made which is a record keeping failure.
It also failed to offer any form of resolution to the resident’s ongoing complaint about issues with the drainage and damp and mould which was inappropriate.
An internal email dated 8 May 2024 notes that the resident had declined to provide access for works. It acknowledged the need to proceed “delicately” but that it needed to reach an agreement for access.
It was positive that the landlord recognised the resident’s circumstances however, this came too late in the process. It should have informed its response from the outset. For example, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered linking in with other professionals, offering home visits and/or giving the resident a specific point of contact.
A job sheet dated 24 May 2024 shows that the drainage works were completed on that day. This was almost a year after works were first identified which was unreasonable. As at December 2024, 18 months after works were identified, the damp and mould issues were outstanding and impacting on the resident and her daughter’s health.
There were serious failings by the landlord however, it is acknowledged that the landlord experienced some difficulties accessing the property. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident.
The access issues did not account for the overall delay, particularly as the landlord failed to take a customer centric approach. It did not go far enough to work with the resident to reach a resolution and it failed to acknowledge the adverse effect caused. This has been considered when assessing compensation as set out below.
During 2023 to 2024 the rent was £204.19 per week. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the loss of use of the 2 bedrooms. The period considered for this calculation is 26 May 2023 to 1 May 2024 which is 49 weeks. This is the period considered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £2,000 compensation. This figure has been calculated as an amenity loss calculation for the 2 bedrooms which could not be used due to damp and mould. It is based on 20% of the weekly rent which is £40.83 x 49 = £2,000.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 for this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord may deduct the £600 it has offered, if this has already been paid.
Following our special investigation into the landlord on 24 October 2023 it has put in place procedures to improve its record keeping. This is to ensure that records are complete, accurate and stored in the correct place. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order on this matter.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 April 2024. An internal email shows that this was forwarded to the complaints team on 4 April. The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 12 April 2024. It said the complaint was registered on 10 April 2024 and that it would respond within 10 working days from the date of registration.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of being received. In this case the landlord took 7 working days which was inappropriate. It should have issued its acknowledgement on 10 April 2024 which was the day it registered the complaint.
It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024 which was 10 working days from 10 April 2024. It is noted that the delay in acknowledging the complaint did not therefore delay the complaint response.
The Code encourages landlords to have processes in place to be able to resolve a complaint at any stage of the complaints process. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response missed the opportunity the fully resolve the outstanding elements of the resident’s complaint which was inappropriate.
The resident set out that changes to the front door hinges had not resolved the issues. However, the response only set out previous works to the hinges which predated the complaint and offered no further solution. In relation to damp and mould it said it had asked the legal repair team to provide further advice. It would have been reasonable to have liaised with the team to set out its response as part of its complaint resolution.
The complaint was not upheld because no new issues had been raised. This was inaccurate because while the repairs themselves were not new the need for resolution was ongoing. The response demonstrated a lack of thoroughness in the landlord’s complaint investigation.
The resident’s complaint clearly set out the impact the damp and mould was having on the resident and her daughter. However, the landlord did not comment on this. Its response lacked empathy and it failed to demonstrate any regard for the health and wellbeing of the resident which was inappropriate.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 16 May 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 17 May 2024 and issued its response on 14 June 2024 which was within time.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately acknowledged its failures at stage 1 as set out above. It went some way to putting right the failures by offering compensation for the delay in completing the repairs and for inconvenience. However, it failed to offer compensation for the complaint handling failures which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of a mice infestation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,900 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £2,000 for the loss of amenity caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs.
  2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs. The landlord may deduct the £600 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  3. £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a case review. It should identify why it did not reach a resolution despite the changes it made to its damp and mould procedures following our special investigation on 24 October 2023. It should consider whether it needs to make further changes in light of its learning from this complaint. A copy of the review should be sent to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.