London Borough of Islington (202421585)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421585

Islington Council

22 May 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has held her tenancy at the property since 1991. The property is a split level 3 bedroom flat on the ground and first floors of a residential block. The resident lives there with her adult daughter, who has acted as her representative during this complaint. The resident is diabetic, arthritic and has a heart condition.
On 28 July 2023, the landlord raised a repair order after the resident reported a damp smell which had recently appeared in the living room of the property. The landlord sent a plumber to the property on 1 August 2023. The plumber did not find any evidence of a plumbing issue. The landlord raised a new repair, for a surveyor to carry out a damp inspection, the same day.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 August 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was not sending a surveyor until 17 August 2023. She said the smell was “unbearable”, affecting her breathing, giving her headaches and making her vomit. She asked the landlord to send a surveyor urgently.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 August 2023. It said that:
1. Its surveyor had attended the property on 17 August 2023. They had been unable to locate any signs of damp and mould.
2. It was arranging to inspect the drains at the property as this could be the source of the smell.
3. It should have raised the repair to a surveyor in the first instance, rather than a plumber. It said that this was a service failure.
4. However, the surveyor had still attended within its required 20 day timeframe.
5. It had awarded the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the service failure.
The resident’s daughter emailed the landlord on 19 August 2023. She said that she did not feel the landlord appreciated the urgency of the matter and the effect on the resident’s health. She expressed dissatisfaction that a further appointment was needed to investigate the issue and asked to escalate the resident’s complaint.
On 29 May 2024, the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord again. She said she had not received any response to her email of 19 August 2023. The landlord responded on 31 May 2024. It apologised for not previously escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its process and confirmed it had now done so.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2024. It said that:
1. Its stage 1 complaint handler had failed to escalate the complaint on 29 May 2023. It acknowledged this was a service failure.
2. It had inspected the drains at the property on 12 September 2023 and had not identified any issues.
3. It had spoken to the resident’s daughter on 4 June 2024. She had raised additional concerns about damp and mould in the wet room of the property.
4. It had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 27 June 2024. They would log any repairs they identified.
5. It had increased its offer of compensation by £325 composed of £100 for inconvenience and distress and £225 for its delay in escalating the complaint.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 27 June 2024. They identified a leak coming from the wet room on the first floor. On 28 June 2024, the landlord raised repairs for the wet room based upon the surveyor’s findings.
The resident’s daughter referred the complaint to us on 3 September 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction with the speed at which landlord had progressed repairs to the wet room and the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When referring the complaint to us, the resident’s daughter expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room leak. The Scheme says that we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process.
The complaint subject to this investigation, as detailed above, concerned the landlord’s process in investigating the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. The landlord did not identify the wet room leak until after it had provided its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, it has not had the opportunity to investigate its handling of the subsequent repairs through its internal complaints process. It is appropriate for it to have this chance to identify, and offer redress for, any service failures that may have occurred before we investigate.
In recognition of this, we have made a recommendation below that the landlord contact the resident to ask whether she would like to raise a new complaint with it about the handling of the repairs.
The resident and her daughter have said the conditions in the property as having affected their health and wellbeing. We are unable to determine the causation of ill health in the way that a court, or personal injury claim, can. Therefore, we cannot consider this element of the complaint. We can, however, consider general distress and inconvenience which the landlord’s handling of matters may have caused the resident and her daughter.

Damp and mould

In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it should have originally raised the repair to a surveyor, rather than a plumber, and that this was a service failure. However, it said that its surveyor had still attended within its “20 day” timeframe.
The landlord’s ‘housing repairs guide’ says that it will attend to ‘routine’ repairs within 20 working days. The landlord has 2 categories of repair priority above routine. These are ‘urgent’ and ‘emergency’. Its repairs guide says it will attend these within 24 hours and 2 hours respectively. The repairs guide describes emergency repairs as those causing “immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property”. Whilst urgent repairs are “those which affect a tenant’s day-to-day living”.
Based upon the information available to the landlord, it was reasonable for it to log the initial repair, and subsequent surveyor’s inspection, as routine repairs. The surveyor attended on 17 August 2023. This was 14 working days after the resident had first reported the damp smell and within its routine repair timescale.
Despite this, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for incorrectly raising the original repair and the inconvenience this had caused. This was reasonable, considering the resident had to allow access for what was a wasted appointment. The amount offered was in keeping with our remedies guidance for an instance of service failure.
After inspecting the property on 17 August 2023, the landlord’s surveyor recorded that they found “no signs of mould or damp” in the living room. Including when using a damp meter. They also said that they were unable to detect any smell in the property but suggested that the landlord check the drains as these could be the source of a smell.
In an email of 7 September 2023, the resident said that the landlord had sent someone to inspect the drains “on the 21st or 22nd of August” and “said it looked ok”. We are unable to find any evidence of this within the landlord’s records.
The landlord’s records do not show it logging a repair for the drain inspection until 11 September 2023. It attended the following day and found no issue with the drains. Whilst we note the lengthy delay between the surveyor’s inspection and the drain inspection being logged, the landlord completed the drain inspection within 20 working days of the surveyor recommending it. This met its routine repair timescale.
The landlord also arranged for a member of its repairs team to inspect the property again on 11 September 2023 to see if they could detect the smell or diagnose any repair issues. This was likely in response to the resident’s comment in her email of 7 September 2023 that the landlord’s surveyor “stated that he had no sense of smell”.
The repairs team member recorded that they were “on site for over 30 minutes in the hallway, lounge, bathroom, kitchen. Could not smell anything related to damp/mould or any other type of bad smell.” Although they noted the resident had the front door and windows open when they arrived.
Having inspected the property twice and the drains at least once and been unable to identify a smell, damp or any other repair issues, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take any further action at this point. However, it has not provided any evidence that it communicated this to the resident. It would have been appropriate to do so as its repairs team member had recorded that she “would like an update of what will happen next regarding the smell” during their visit. We have, however, not see any evidence that the resident or her daughter contacted the landlord again regarding the smell, damp or mould until 25 March 2024.
On this date, the landlord raised a repair order for a surveyor to conduct a damp and mould survey of the wet room at the property. It again raised this as a routine priority, which was reasonable. The landlord’s surveyor did not attend until 2 May 2024, 28 working days later. This was outside of its 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response.
The surveyor recorded that the resident asked about having the wet room shower seat renewed. They wrote that when they informed the resident this would not be approved, as the seat had only recently been installed. Due to this, the resident “requested to terminate the inspection”. Based upon the way this appointment ended, it was reasonable for the landlord not to attempt to arrange a further inspection but leave this up to the resident to request.
After escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, the landlord relogged the wet room damp and mould inspection on 7 June 2024. This was appropriate as the resident’s daughter had raised concerns about this again during a phone call with it on 4 June 2024. In its stage 2 response it appropriately informed the resident that its surveyor would attend on 27 June 2024. This appointment was completed as scheduled.
The landlord also showed appropriate empathy and consideration of the resident’s concerns, stating, “Please note that I am not suggesting that the odour does not exist, and I empathise because of the effect you describe it is having on you and your household. Therefore, the best way to assist you is to arrange a second opinion damp inspection.”
The landlord also took reasonable steps in signposting the resident to environmental health and its tenancy services team for further support, should the surveyor be unable to identify any issues. It appropriately signposted her to occupational therapy for any concerns about her shower seat.
During the inspection of 27 June 2024, the landlord’s surveyor identified a leak from the wet room affecting the ceilings below. It is not possible for us to determine how long this leak had been ongoing or if it should have been evident during earlier inspections by the landlord. We note, however, that its plumber recorded that there was “No sign of leak in downstairs ceiling” on the initial visit of 1 August 2023.
The landlord raised repairs to further trace and repair the leak on 28 June 2024, the day after its surveyor’s inspection. This was in keeping with its commitment to do so in its stage 2 response.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns by arranging multiple inspections of the property. It acknowledged that it initially raised the repair order incorrectly and made a reasonable offer of compensation for this.
However, the landlord has not evidenced that it informed the resident it would not be taking any further action after inspecting the drains on 12 September 2023. This was despite her telling it the day before that she wanted an update on next steps. The landlord also failed to arrange the first surveyor’s inspection of the wet room within its 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. Due to this we make a finding of service failure and order a further £100 in compensation.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said that it would acknowledge requests to escalate complaints to stage 2 of its process within 3 working days. It said it would provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.
The resident’s daughter emailed the landlord on 19 August 2023 expressing her continued dissatisfaction and asking to escalate the complaint. She sent this email to both the stage 1 complaint handler and the landlord’s customer services team.
The landlord’s records show that the resident’s daughter also phoned it on 1 September 2023. It emailed the stage 1 complaint handler asking them to call the resident back to discuss the complaint. There is no evidence that the complaint handler returned the call, and the landlord failed to escalate the complaint.
The resident’s daughter emailed the landlord again on 29 May 2024 raising that it had not provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord responded on 31 May 2024. It apologised that it had failed to escalate the complaint and said it had now done so. It provided its stage 2 response on 20 June 2024. This was 16 working days after the resident’s daughter’s email of 29 May 2024.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately apologised that it had failed to escalate the complaint at the first time of asking. It explained that the stage 1 complaint handler had left its employ and failed to action the escalation prior to doing so.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £325 in its stage 2 response. As it did not identify any other service failures within the response, we conclude that this amount was entirely for its failure to escalate her complaint in a timely manner.
£225 of this amount was for the delay. The landlord calculated this at £25 per month for the 9 months between the resident’s daughter first asking to escalate the complaint and it eventually doing so. This was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy which sets a guideline of £25 per month for delays including “every month after the statutory period has been missed for a Stage 1 and 2 complaint response.”
The landlord also offered a further £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused by this service failure.
The landlord’s total offer of £325 falls within our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration. Although it was a single service failure, the duration of the delay means that such an offer was appropriate. Particularly given the health concerns raised by the resident and her daughter. Due to this, we find that the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its failings in handling her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 composed of:
1. The £50 offered in its stage 1 complaint response for its service failure in incorrectly raising its initial repair.
2. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure in handling her concerns about damp and mould.

Recommendations

We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £325 compensation it offered for its complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response. The determination of reasonable redress is dependent upon this.
We also recommend that the landlord contact the resident and ask whether she would like to log a new complaint about its handling of repairs to the property since the leak was identified on 27 June 2024.