London Borough of Islington (202432335)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432335

London Borough of Islington

30 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the roof causing damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. He has Parkinson’s disease along with several other vulnerabilities. The resident’s sister owns 50% of the leasehold and often deals with matters on the resident’s behalf. For the purposes of this report, I will refer to them both as the leaseholder.
3. On 11 January 2024 the leaseholder reported to the landlord that water was dripping from the ceiling and walls in both bedrooms. They said it was causing damp and mould and their wardrobes were warping.
4. The landlord arranged for a roofing contractor to attend the property on 6 February 2024. They reported the issue was not caused by leaks from the roof, but by condensation within the property. The landlord then arranged for a damp surveyor to attend the property on 12 April 2024, who also reported the issue was caused by condensation.
5. The leaseholder raised a complaint to the landlord on 16 April 2024. They said the damp surveyor failed to attend the 1st appointment. They said the surveyor did not want to look at the roof as he already knew the issue was caused by condensation and not a roof leak. They asked the landlord for another surveyor to inspect the roof and property as they did not believe the issue was caused by condensation.
6. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 1 May 2024. It confirmed a roofing contractor assessed the roof on 6 February 2024 and determined the issue was not caused by the roof. It confirmed the issue was caused by condensation. It also acknowledged service failure as it changed the damp survey appointment from 21 March to 12 April 2024 without informing the leaseholder – it apologised for that. It upheld the complaint due to a failed appointment and offered £125 compensation.
7. The leaseholder expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 6 May 2024. They said they accepted the compensation for the service failure and inconvenience but wanted the landlord to escalate the roof leak issue to stage 2 of its complaint process.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 28 June 2024. It said the roof leak only affected a neighbour’s property and it completed the roof repairs on 26 April 2024. It said it had arranged another damp and mould survey for 3 July 2024. It also confirmed its stance the issue was caused by condensation and maintained the apology and compensation from its stage 1 response.
9. When the leaseholder initially contacted the Ombudsman, they wanted the landlord to resolve the outstanding issues. However, during the course of our investigation, they told us the landlord had completed all roof repairs. They also said they had made an insurance claim to resolve and repair the damp and mould issues within the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. In this case, the leaseholder said they had experienced issues with their bedroom ceilings for many years. However, there are no records to show a formal complaint was raised with the landlord until April 2024. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak from April 2023. We cannot consider the previous incidents in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. Any mention of past events in this report would be solely for contextual purposes.
11. Furthermore, any issues that arose following the landlord’s final response of 28 June 2024 have also not completed its complaints process. Consequently, this investigation’s assessment is limited to events that occurred up to the final complaint response. Some events following June 2024 may be referenced in this report to give context of any potential outstanding repairs. The leaseholder may wish to consider making a new complaint to the landlord if she is dissatisfied with its handling of any matters post June 2024.

Reports of a leak from the roof causing damp and mould

12. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair the structure of the building including the exterior walls and the roof. The leaseholder is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in good and substantial repair.
13. The Ombudsman has noted that the issue underpinning the complaint is a disagreement between the landlord and leaseholder about the cause of the damp, and who is responsible for putting it right. This Service cannot determine the cause of the damp. We can only look at whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances and in line with its obligations.
14. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should ensure their response to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. They should share the outcome of surveys with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. They should also act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
15. Following the leaseholder’s reports on 11 January 2024 of water dripping from the ceiling and walls, the landlord raised a work order on 12 January 2024. It asked for a roofing contractor to attend and inspect the roof for any leaks and resolve the problem.
16. A roofing contractor attended the property on 6 February 2024 and completed an inspection of the roof with scaffolding. They reported to the landlord that the issue was not caused by leaks from the roof, but by condensation causing damp on the outer walls in the bedrooms. However, there is no evidence of exactly what the inspection consisted of or what tests were completed. They recommended to the landlord that a damp surveyor was required.
17. On 16 February 2024 the landlord raised an appointment for a damp survey to take place on 21 March 2024. However, the landlord subsequently rearranged the appointment to 12 April 2024 without telling the leaseholder. This was inappropriate as it delayed the damp survey and caused inconvenience for the leaseholder.
18. The damp survey took place 64 working days after the leaseholder first reported the issue. It is our view the landlord did not complete this in a timely manner in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
19. The damp surveyor attended the property on 12 April 2024. They assessed both the bedrooms and concluded the issue was caused by surface condensation due to internal conditions in the property and a lack of ventilation. They also said the property was insufficiently heated as the heating was only used when necessary. They offered advice to the leaseholder and reported to the landlord that no further action was required.
20. A landlord must rely on the opinions of appropriately qualified professionals when deciding on appropriate action to take in these circumstances. In this case a roofing contractor had inspected the roof and told the landlord the property was not being affected by a roof leak, and the issue was caused by condensation. In addition, a damp survey was completed and determined internal condensation was the cause of the issue.
21. In its stage 1 complaint response of 1 May 2024 the landlord confirmed the information reported by the roofing contractor and damp surveyor and that no further action was required. It was reasonable for the landlord to base its response on the information provided by the roofing contractor and damp surveyor. It also offered £125 compensation (£50 for service failure/missed appointment, £50 for inconvenience, and £25 for time and effort to complain). This was a reasonable offer of compensation for the service failure highlighted and was accepted by the leaseholder.
22. When the leaseholder asked to escalate the matter on 6 May 2024, they disputed that condensation was the cause of the issues. They asked the landlord to share information about any ongoing or previous roof leaks. They also asked it to complete a further thorough inspection of the roof.
23. On 31 May and 10 June 2024 the landlord asked the surveyor if they could complete a further inspection and water ingress tests. They surveyor responded on 10 June 2024 and reiterated he found no evidence of water ingress, and all signs pointed to condensation. He said the leaseholder would not accept his findings and would rather have a second opinion.
24. When the landlord issued its final response of 28 June 2024 it reiterated the information already provided in its stage 1 response. However, it confirmed it had booked a further survey for 3 July 2024. As the leaseholder had disputed the findings of the roofing contractor and damp surveyor, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a second opinion on the matter.
25. A surveyor attended on 3 July 2024 and reported to the landlord there was condensation and mould with water droplets on both bedroom walls and ceilings. They reported there was no leaking from any pipework, drains or gutters. They concluded that scaffolding was required to allow for closer inspection of the parapet wall, flat roof and cavity wall inspection. They said only once scaffolding was erected could a full schedule of work be identified and raised.
26. Since then, the landlord arranged for more scaffolding to be erected, and for a roofing contractor to complete a further inspection. That happened on 16 October 2024 and they reported to the landlord there were poor seals on the flashings, and they resealed them. However, the leaseholder said the issue remained ongoing, so it appears that was not the cause of the conditions in the bedrooms.
27. The landlord has also since arranged a further damp survey that took place on 7 March 2025. This again concluded there were no signs of water ingress, and the issue was caused by condensation due to an imbalance of ventilation and heating.
28. In summary, the landlord raised jobs to investigate any issues with the roof and to assess the reports of damp and mould prior to issuing its stage 1 decision. However, there were delays with the appointments and poor communication by not informing the leaseholder of changes to the damp survey appointment date. It then followed the advice of the roofing contractor and the surveyor, which was that no further action was necessary. Following the leaseholder’s further dispute about the cause of the damp in their escalation request, it raised another roof inspection and damp survey, which was a reasonable action to take in all the circumstances.
29. It is the Ombudsman’s view the offer totalling £125 compensation is proportionate redress for the impact on the leaseholder of the failings identified above. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
30. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made an offer to the leaseholder that provides reasonable redress in relation to its handling of reports of a leak from the roof causing damp and mould.

The associated complaint

31. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
32. When the leaseholder first complained on 16 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. It then provided its stage 1 response 11 working days later. This was not in line with the Code and the landlord’s own policy. However, the delay of 1 working day would have had minimal impact.
33. Following the leaseholder’s escalation request of 6 May 2024 the landlord did not acknowledge the request until 3 June 2024. This was not in line with the Code or the landlord’s own policy.
34. Following the landlord’s acknowledgement of the escalation request, it issued its final response 19 working days later. This was within the timescales for responding from the date of escalation. However, it was 38 working days after the leaseholder asked to escalate, which is inappropriate.
35. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord delayed issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, for which it offered no redress. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
36. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the leaseholder £50 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such failings resulting in service failure that delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a leak from the roof causing damp and mould.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the leaseholder with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the leaseholder £50 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
40. The payment must be paid directly to the leaseholder and not credited to the service charge account unless otherwise agreed by the leaseholder.

Recommendations

41. We recommend the landlord pays the leaseholder the compensation it had previously offered totalling £125 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle reports of a leak from the roof causing damp and mould (if it has not done so already). The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.