London Borough of Islington (202536205)

Decision
Case ID	202536205
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of mice, damp and mould, and associated repairs following a leak. She said the issues had persisted for several years and its completion of temporary repairs had failed to resolve the issues. It said the Tenancy Management Organisation (TMO) is responsible for minor repairs while it is responsible for major repairs. She said the condition of the property and its impact on her and her children’s health meant it should rehouse her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of mice, damp and mould, a leak and the associated repairs.
   2. Request to be rehoused.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of mice, damp and mould, a leak and associated repairs.
   2. Request to be rehoused.
   3. Associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Reports of mice, damp and mould, a leak and associated repairs

4. The landlord could have provided clearer information about its repair responsibilities. However, it acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It acted in line with its policies and committed to completing the work.

Request to be rehoused

5. The landlord provided a comprehensive response, outlined its responsibilities and directed the resident to the appropriate team.

Associated complaint

6. The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within its policy timeframe.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should provide the resident with clear and consistent guidance outlining the respective repair responsibilities of the landlord and the TMO.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 August 2025	The resident complained about multiple issues including damp and mould, mice, leaks, and related repairs. She said these conditions had consistently affected the property and had negatively impacted her and her children’s health. She believed the landlord should rehouse her. She said temporary repairs had failed to resolve the issues over the past 6 years and she was seeking a permanent solution.
4 September 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
18 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it liaised with the TMO, which confirmed there was no evidence of an infestation. It could carry out a course of treatments but recommended the TMO complete any required proofing works it completed a damp and mould survey, identified visible mould, recommended mould wash treatment and scheduled the relevant works it responded to the resident’s rehousing concerns, provided an update and referred her to the relevant team. It also encouraged her to consider alternative options it acknowledged the history of reported issues but explained it could only investigate matters raised within the previous 12 months it had identified no service failures
13 October 2025	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint. It acknowledged her escalation request the same day.
10 November 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised it was not clear about responsibilities between it and the TMO. It advised minor repairs should be reported to the TMO and major repairs to its repairs team. It acknowledged the resident did not want any further temporary repairs in her home and wanted urgent rehousing.   The landlord said it had received the residents supporting letters to be considered as part of the medical review she requested. It said she should expect an outcome by the end of the month. It advised her of alternative housing options and provided details on Mutual Exchange (MEX). It concluded that it did not uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us as she was unhappy with the final complaint response. She wants a permanent solution for the repairs, damp and mould, mice issues and wants to be rehoused.

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.

Complaint	Reports of mice, damp and mould, a leak and the associated repairs
Finding	No maladministration

7. Prior to the resident’s complaint, on 11 July 2025, the landlord completed a survey to assess damp and mould in the property. The survey identified condensation as the primary cause of mould growth. It provided advice in line with its repairs policy and recommended a full mould wash and redecoration to address the issue. It raised a repair to fix a patch of plaster on the kitchen ceiling affected by a previous leak. It said this repair was the TMO’s responsibility and emailed the survey findings and required works on 14 July 2025.
8. The landlord raised repairs for the kitchen ceiling on 16 July 2025. It made multiple attempts to contact the resident and arrange an appointment but recorded 3 instances of no access. In line with its repairs policy, it attempted contact, photographed the front door, and left a calling card. She later cancelled further appointments due to health reasons, and it eventually cancelled the repair on 20 January 2026. While it committed to completing the required work, it was limited in being able to do so given the repeated access restrictions.
9. The resident reported persistent pest issues by email on 4 August 2025. The landlord responded and advised that its repairs team would contact her directly regarding pest control. It confirmed an appointment for 7 August 2025. This was in line with its pest control procedure, which states it will respond to enquiries within 3 working days to agree a date. It requested the TMO carry out kitchen pest‑proofing works. This action aligned with its pest control procedure, which states that it will complete proofing works to support effective pest control treatment. That said, it is unclear if these repairs were completed.
10. On 21 August 2025, the landlord raised a routine repair request to address the damp and mould identified in its survey. The resident later advised that temporary fixes had been implemented but these did not resolve the issue. There was no evidence provided to show the TMO had completed the required works. It scheduled an appointment for 4 September 2025, which fell within the 20 working day timescale set out in its repairs policy. She cancelled the appointment due to health reasons. It made multiple attempts to reschedule the works and stressed that, given the nature of the issues, they required prompt attention.
11. After the resident raised the complaint, the landlord contacted the TMO advising it was progressing the kitchen ceiling and mould works. However, it did not acknowledge the scheduled appointments had not yet taken place. It stated the TMO was responsible for pest control measures, including sealing access points, and should replace the bathroom tiles where possible. In response, the TMO said the mouse issue was not its responsibility but they would assist. Clearer definition of responsibilities would have enabled more consistent guidance to the resident and managing organisations. This would help to resolve the issues more promptly and avoid delays caused by confusion.
12. The landlord clarified its position in its stage 1 complaint response. It set out next steps for pest control and the required repairs to the kitchen ceiling, bathroom tiles, and damp and mould. In its stage 2 complaint response, it apologised for the confusion regarding responsibilities and confirmed that it would take this into account in future cases. It advised the resident to report minor repairs to the TMO and major repairs to its repairs team, in line with its housing repairs policy. It acknowledged she no longer wanted temporary repairs.
13. Following the final response, the resident confirmed she cancelled repairs on 27 November 2025 and would request them again following our investigation.
14. The landlord has been unable to gain access to the property to complete the works required to address the mould. It has provided evidence it is considering its obligations under Awaab’s Law. It has noted that it considers it proportionate and necessary to proceed with an application for an access injunction. This approach is consistent with its repairs policy. While it demonstrated its commitment to resolving the issues and tried to gain access, it could have considered taking this action sooner.
15. That said, although it could have considered its access obligations sooner, it complied with its policies. We therefore found no maladministration.

Complaint	Request to be rehoused
Finding	No maladministration

16. The resident raised concerns about her housing situation and asked the landlord to consider rehousing her. In August 2024, it explained that its remit related to tenancy matters rather than rehousing. It contacted the rehousing team, which agreed to contact her directly to discuss housing options, including MEX and a medical assessment.
17. The landlord confirmed the resident’s current points and explained it had assessed her application in line with the housing allocations policy. It stated her circumstances did not meet the threshold for a direct offer and confirmed bidding for the development she was interested in had closed. This response was reasonable, clearly explained its role, provided relevant information, and signposted her to the appropriate service for rehousing advice.
18. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it reiterated she could bid but her low points and the shortage of family‑sized homes made an offer unlikely. It confirmed there was no medical priority, and senior managers had reviewed and refused a direct offer.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed the medical review was ongoing and again signposted alternative housing options. Its responses were clear and it managed expectations and confirmed its initial position. We have, therefore, found no failings in its response to her rehousing request.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint within the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
21. The landlord acknowledged and issued both complaint responses within its policy timescales. We have, therefore, found no failings in its handling of the complaint.
22. The landlord dated its stage 2 complaint response 10 October 2025. This date appears to be an error, as the resident’s escalation request and its acknowledgement were both dated 13 October 2025. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it entered the month incorrectly. It should ensure that it records and issues complaint responses using accurate dates.

Learning

General learning

23. It is important for the landlord to ensure the correct dates have been included in its formal correspondence.
24. In cases involving access difficulties, the landlord could reflect on its obligations at an earlier stage, particularly where health risks may be present.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. We found no issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

26. Overall, communication was good. The landlord provided clear information and explanations at each stage.