London Borough of Newham (202501941)

Decision
Case ID	202501941
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Newham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	7 May 2026

Background

1. The resident complained the landlord failed to clear the blocked gutter which led to damp and mould developing in the property. As a result, the property and her tenant’s belongings were damaged.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a blocked gutter and associated issues with damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked gutter and associated issues with damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and acknowledged the delays as well as the time and trouble experienced by the resident. It made a reasonable award of compensation and agreed to carry out a further inspection of the guttering.
5. The landlord did not follow its published complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This caused the resident to experience an unreasonable delay before she received the landlord’s final complaint responses giving its position on her complaints.

 

 

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, within 3 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the £200 it awarded during its complaint process for the delay and time and trouble experienced by the resident. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the payment being made to the resident.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 December 2024	The resident complained that the landlord’s failure to clear the blocked guttering, caused damp and mould to the external wall. This meant she had to treat the damp and mould and decorate the property.
14 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and said it could not find any evidence it owned the property.
16 March 2025	The resident made a further complaint to the landlord. The resident said: The landlord had not responded to the complaints about damp and mould she made on 4 December 2024 and 14 January 2025 Her preferred outcome was for the landlord to resolve the damp and mould and to compensate her for the damage to the property.
4 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and said: Its senior building surveyor inspected the property on 20 January 2025. The resident was not present at the start of the inspection but had arrived when the senior building surveyor was leaving. The inspection found condensation in the property and it informed the resident of this. The building surveyor noted evidence of small amounts of vegetation in the guttering and said he would raise an order for the removal of the vegetation.
2 May 2025	The resident provided the landlord with 2 complaint reference numbers and set out she wanted her complaints escalated.
9 September 2025	We wrote to the landlord requesting it respond to the resident’s complaint.
23 September 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint procedure and said: It had completed guttering works on 13 September 2024 and had not received any further reports about the guttering. It confirmed the resident was responsible for internal repairs. The resident could make a claim under the building insurance for any internal damage and submit an insurance claim for any housing related damage. It apologised it had not provided this information earlier in its stage 1 complaint response. It would arrange a further inspection of the guttering. The resident should provide evidence of the costs she wanted reimbursed by its insurers. The landlord made a compensation award of £200 for the delay, and the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not taken responsibility for the damp and mould or the damage to her tenants belongings.

 

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 blocked guttering and associated issues with damp and mould.
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The lease obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the guttering to the property. The landlord’s records show on 9 September 2024 it received a report the blocked guttering had affected the resident’s property and it attended by 6 November 2024. This was to inspect the eaves and remove any waste and/ or debris from the guttering. This was in line with its obligations to keep the property in repair and reasonable.
7. The landlord’s records do not show any further reports about the guttering from the resident until she made her complaint on 4 December 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection to check the condition of the guttering.However, it took around 30 working days before the inspection took place on 20 January 2025 which is outside its routine repair timescale of 20 working days.
8. At this inspection, the landlord’s senior building surveyor assessed that the damp and mould was caused by condensation. In these circumstances, we would expect the landlord to give advice on the management of condensation. The resident confirmed the senior building surveyor gave a leaflet on managing condensation to her tenants. He also discussed the matter with the resident after he had completed the assessment.
9. The resident said the senior building surveyor attended the property without prior notice and she did not agree with his assessment of the cause of the damp and mould.  While the resident disputed the damp and mould was caused by the condensation, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional advice it receives when managing its properties and in deciding what action if any is required.

 

10. The senior building surveyor agreed to raise an order to clear the guttering of vegetation. The landlord’s records do not show it raised the order despite the resident raising concerns about the guttering in her communication on 9 September 2025. The landlord in its stage 2 response agreed to arrange a further inspection of the guttering, and commitments made in complaint responses should be adhered to. While the landlord has not provided evidence it has inspected the guttering the resident has confirmed the landlord had since cleared the guttering to resolve the issue.
11. Our insurance guidance sets out that landlord’s should clearly explain to residents which matters it can referred to its insurers. The landlord acted in line with this guidance when it advised the resident, she could make a building insurance claim for any internal damage to the property caused by the damp and mould. The landlord also explained she could submit an insurance claim for any housing related damage through its liability insurer and advised the resident to provide evidence of any damage and costs incurred she wished to have reimbursed. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for its oversight in not providing this information when it responded at stage 1 of its complaint procedure.
12. The landlord in its complaint review made an overall compensation award of £200. The amount was made up of £100 for the delay and distress experienced by the resident in getting the repairs addressed and £100 for the time and trouble taken to chase the landlord. The payment was in line with its compensation policy which sets out amounts of up to £150 can be paid for such issues and reflects the frustration experienced by the resident. For those reasons we have assessed the compensation offered by the landlord to be fair and reasonable.
13. In summary, the landlord has an obligation to keep the guttering in repair. It has acknowledged the delays, time, and trouble experienced by the resident in getting the guttering repaired and the property inspected. The landlord advised the resident of the process for submitting an insurance claim for any internal damage or damage to belongings and made a proportionate award of compensation. It also said it had taken learning from the complaint by changing the way it manages surveyor inspections.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

 

14. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 December 2024 regarding the guttering at the property. The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord’s records show it sent an acknowledgement however, it is not possible to confirm the date the acknowledgment was sent when generated by the landlord’s system. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 January 2025.
15. The landlord stage 1 complaint response did not include all the information required by the Code. In its response the landlord said it had checked its records and did not believe it owned the property. However, it did not explain what checks it had carried out to confirm ownership or the resident’s occupancy. In addition, the landlord did not set out the resident’s escalation rights or explain the steps she could take if she remained dissatisfied with its response. This was not reasonable as it prevented the resident the opportunity to pursue resolution of her complaint.
16. The resident made a further complaint on 16 March 2025 about damp and mould in the property. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2025, taking 14 days. This was just outside the landlord’s published complaint timescale of 10 working days.
17. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 May 2025 and contacted us on 16 June 2025 advising she had not received a response from the landlord to her complaints. We wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2025 requesting it respond to her complaints.
18. On 16 September 2025 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and confirmed it would provide its response by 23 September 2025. The acknowledgement referred to the complaint made in December 2024. This did not reference the complaint made in March 2025 despite the resident stating she wanted all of her concerns addressed. The landlord has not advised us it issued a separate stage 2 complaint response in relation to the March 2025 complaint. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have treated the complaint response provided as relating to both complaints.
19. The landlord provided its complaint response on 23 September 2025. Overall, the resident experienced an unacceptable delay in receiving the landlord’s complaint responses from when she escalated her complaint in May 2025 to September 2025. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s published complaint timescale of 20 working days and the requirements set out in the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge or address this delay in its complaints review and did not recognise the frustration caused to the resident. This was not reasonable particularly as the resident had to contact us to get the landlord to provide its position on her complaint.
20. Overall, the landlord failed to consistently follow its complaints procedure and did not provide the resident with its position on the complaints within a reasonable time frame. The landlord did not offer any compensation its complaint handling failures. Our compensation policy provides that payments up to £100 may be appropriate where complaint handling failures have had an adverse impact on a resident. In this case, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 in recognition of the frustration and likely distress experienced by the resident.

 

Learning

21. Landlords should follow its complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s records should show all repair raised and the date any work completed.

Communication

23. The landlord did not show it liaised with the resident to understand her concerns or to manage her expectations.