From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Sutton (202342463)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342463

London Borough of Sutton

31 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden, and associated repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about condensation in the downstairs bathroom.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives at the property with her partner, her non-dependent child, and her grandchild. The landlord told us there were no known vulnerabilities within the household.
  2. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette within a 2-storey building. The property is located above a large “undercroft”, which serves a number of garages. An undercroft is a vaulted or partially underground space, found below a building. The lower floor of the property, which comprises the kitchen, bathroom, and living room are directly above the undercroft. The flat above the property, has a rear balcony garden, which is located directly above the upper floor of property. The occupier of the flat above will be referenced in this report as “the neighbour”.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord in November 2023 to raise a stage 1 complaint. The resident stated:
    1. The landlord had not responded to her latest report, made on 31 October 2023, about water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden.
    2. Mould had returned in the upstairs bathroom and the ceiling was peeling again. She suggested the new bathroom extractor fan it recently fitted was unsuitable.
    3. There was a problem with condensation in the downstairs bathroom, due to it removing the insulation from the garages below. She said this was causing the bathroom floor to become wet and slippery. And had resulted in increased heating costs.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in December 2023 after it did not issue a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not issue a stage 2 complaint response.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint in February 2024. The resident’s reasons for dissatisfaction were:
    1. The length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve the water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden.
    2. The landlord’s failure to respond to her reports about condensation in the downstairs bathroom.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response in March 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Accepted the time taken for it to complete repairs to address the water ingress had become protracted, due to difficulties obtaining access to the neighbour’s property. But confirmed its contractor had completed extensive works when access was gained on 7 March 2024.
    2. Said it was regrettable that its attempts to resolve the water ingress had been unsuccessful. It explained it had scheduled an appointment for 28 March 2025 to complete a “dye test” and to progress repairs as required.
    3. Committed to completing internal repairs within 4 weeks of the external works being satisfactorily completed. This included:
      1. A 3-part mould treatment to all affected surfaces in the bedrooms and bathroom.
      2. Redecoration of rooms affected by water ingress and mould.
      3. Overhaul of the front door frame, to prevent further water ingress.
    4. Explained damp and mould had been identified as an estate wide issue. And recognised that its removal of polystyrene tiles from the garage area, may have contributed to the problems she was experiencing with condensation.
    5. Confirmed that it had engaged a specialist contractor to investigate the cause of damp and mould being experienced by residents, which it intended to address as a long-term project. It said it would ask its specialist contractor to also consider the potential impact of removing the polystyrene tiles on utility costs. And committed to keeping all of its residents updated.
    6. Said it would arrange for its ventilation contractor to consider if there was an alternative bathroom extractor fan that could provide greater ventilation.
    7. Offered £250 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble progressing these matters, and for any distress and inconvenience caused. It explained that additional compensation was likely to be considered as part of its wider review into the damp and mould.
  7. The resident told us in January 2025 that the landlord had resolved the water ingress from the neighbour’s property. But said she remained dissatisfied with how long it took the landlord to rectify this. She said the landlord had not addressed the mould and peeling paint in the bathroom. Or the condensation in the downstairs bathroom. She said the landlord should complete all of the outstanding repairs and review its offer of compensation.
  8. The resident added on 6 July 2025 that the landlord had given her no timeline for resolving the outstanding matters and it had not kept her updated about the action it was taking. She described her dealings with the landlord as a “constant battle”, which had impacted her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told us that there had been issues with water ingress, damp, mould, and condensation in the property since 2020. However, it is fair to all parties for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s more recent handling of the central issues, due to the passage of time and the lack of available evidence.
  2. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the central issues from October 2023 up until March 2024, which was the timeframe the landlord considered during its own complaint investigation. This being the period the resident first reported water ingress into her grandchild’s bedroom, up to the date the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response.
  3. For clarity, we may consider events that happened after the stage 2 complaint response, when taking into account any commitments made by the landlord during its internal complaint process.
  4. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts to health. But we may consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden, and associated repairs.

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior to the property in repair. And to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. What the landlord considered to be a reasonable timeframe, is set out in its responsive repairs policy. This policy states, an emergency out of hours service will be provided 24 hours, 7 days a week, to deal with emergencies. But all other repairs will be carried out within a 20-day timescale, with a mutually agreed reasonable appointment date that complies with the timescales set out in the Right to Repair Regulations.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its tenants are required under their tenancy agreement, to allow access at any reasonable time for it to inspect and carry out repairs and maintenance. The landlord may force access to a property where immediate access is required to prevent risk to a neighbouring property and carry out urgent repairs. Failure to provide access may result in legal action being taken against the tenant.
  4. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord may award £50 compensation where a complaint is upheld and there has been clear inconvenience or distress to the resident. It will award up to £500 compensation where there has been significant inconvenience and / or distress, due to a failing in its service or where there is evidence of recurrent failure. And up to £1,000 compensation where there has been a serious failure in service or persistent failure over a prolonged period, which has caused stress, anxiety, frustration, and / or inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The resident first reported water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden, into her grandchild’s bedroom on 31 October 2023. The landlord raised a repairs order to address this in a timely manner on 2 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs log suggests that the water ingress was resolved on 24 November 2023, which was within the landlord’s expected repairs timescale.
  6. The resident told the landlord on 2 January 2024 that the water ingress had returned. The landlord took prompt steps to gain access to the neighbour’s property, to address this. But a combination of adverse weather conditions and difficulties gaining access to the neighbour’s property meant repairs were not completed until 7 March 2024. It was positive that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident over this timeframe about what was delaying the repair, so the resident was aware.
  7. The landlord committed to a reasonable course of action to satisfy itself of the effectiveness of the repair, by requesting a controlled water test (“dye test”) on 7 March 2024. It was unfortunate that the resident found the water ingress had returned on 15 March 2024 before it had time to complete the dye test.
  8. The landlord committed in the stage 2 complaint response on 22 March 2024 to completing the dye test on 28 March 2024 and to progressing external repairs as required. The landlord also committed to carrying out a mould treatment and redecorating all affected areas, which included this bedroom, within 4 weeks of the external repairs being completed. This was encouraging and shows that the landlord’s commitment to resolving matters for the resident.
  9. But we note the dye test was not completed until 25 April 2024 due to continued issues with the neighbour providing access. Given the ongoing detriment to the resident and her family from continued water ingress, and the potential damage to its asset, the landlord might have considered taking a more robust course of action to secure access to the neighbour’s property. This would have been in accordance with its repairs policy.
  10. The landlord did not keep the resident updated of the action it was taking between 25 April 2024 and 20 June 2024 to address the water ingress. The resident tried to chase the landlord several times for updates over this timeframe but she did not receive a response, which was unfair. This was a failure in the landlord’s communications.
  11. The landlord erected scaffolding on 25 June 2024. But no works orders were raised to inspect or resolve the water ingress until 29 July 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence showing the steps it was taking to address the water ingress, over this timeframe. This has restricted our ability to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions.
  12. The landlord carried out extensive works to the neighbour’s balcony garden on 25 September 2024, which resolved water ingress into the resident’s grandchild’s bedroom.
  13. The landlord did not complete a mould wash or redecorate her grandchild’s bedroom within 4 weeks of the repairs to the balcony garden being completed. The resident states that these works are still outstanding, although we note there may be some confusion between the parties as to whether the resident had committed to carry out this work herself and for the landlord to reimburse her.
  14. The landlord accepted during its own internal complaint investigation, that the time taken to complete repairs to resolve water ingress had become protracted, due to delays obtaining access to the neighbour’s property. It tried to put things right by committing to complete all of the external and internal repairs, and by offering compensation for time and trouble.
  15. In the absence of clarity from the landlord, we have assumed that the landlord’s combined offer of compensation for time and trouble was split equally between the 2 complaint points the landlord identified some fault. This means that the amount of compensation for time and trouble apportioned to this complaint point was £125. This was proportionate to the level of involvement by the resident up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. However, this compensation does not fully reflect the detriment that was caused to the resident and her family by the failings we identified.
  16. We accept that it can sometimes take a landlord several attempts to identify the cause of water ingress before a lasting repair is achieved. But it was evident in this case, that:
    1. It took the landlord nearly 11 months from the date the water ingress was first reported before this was fully resolved. This significantly exceeded its expected repairs timescale.
    2. There were other steps the landlord could have taken to secure access to the neighbouring property in a timelier manner.
    3. It did not always keep the resident informed of the action it was taking, particularly after the stage 2 complaint response was issued.
  17. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden, and associated repairs.
  18. To remedy the complaint, the landlord ordered is ordered to pay £450 compensation, in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified. This includes the £125 compensation the landlord previously offered at stage 2 for time and trouble.
  19. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards in this range where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, the landlord had made some attempt to put things right. But its offer of compensation does not fully reflect the failings we identified in our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom

  1. For context, the landlord installed a new extractor fan in the upstairs bathroom in August 2023 to address a previous issue with damp and mould.
  2. The resident told the landlord in the stage 1 complaint on 21 November 2023 that the bathroom ceiling had started peeling again and mould was returning. The resident said the new extractor fan it previously fitted was inadequate.
  3. The landlord told the resident later the same day, that it would get back to her concerning this. But it did not. The resident had to raise a stage 2 complaint before the landlord acknowledged the resident’s continued concern about peeling paint and mould. This was inappropriate given the landlord’s statutory duty to keep the property free from hazards such as damp and mould, in accordance with the Housing Fit for Human Habitation Act 2018.
  4. The landlord attended the property on 18 January 2024 to discuss the resident’s reasons complaint. The landlord did not take a course of action immediately after this, to these issues. This was unreasonable and left the matter unresolved.
  5. The landlord did commit in the stage 2 complaint response on 22 March 2024 to completing a 3-part mould treatment to all affected areas and redecorating, which included the upstairs bathroom. The landlord said that it would complete these works within 4 weeks of the external repairs being satisfactorily completed. But given the landlord’s obligation to minimise risk previously referenced, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out this mould treatment in a timelier manner. We note the landlord did not complete the mould treatment or redecorate the upstairs bathroom within 4 weeks of the external repairs being completed as it had committed.
  6. We note that the landlord also committed in the stage 2 complaint response, to investigating with its contractor, if there was alternative extractor fan that would provide greater ventilation. The landlord did not provide the resident with an expected timescale for issuing a decision concerning this. But it would have been reasonable for the resident to have assumed, it was intending to progress this in a timely manner. However, the landlord did not instruct its contractor to investigate alternative extractor fans until August 2024. This was unreasonable.
  7. The resident told us in January 2025 and again in July 2025 that the landlord had not addressed the mould or the peeling paint in the bathroom. And it had not replaced the extractor fan. It is evident from communications between the parties, that there has been some confusion as to whether the resident had committed to carrying out these works herself.
  8. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould, and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom fell short. The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports about damp and mould in a timely manner or mitigate the risk. The landlord did commit to a course of action to address the issue. But it did not do this within the timescale it committed to. Ultimately, the matter remains unresolved.
  9. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom.
  10. To remedy the complaint, the landlord ordered to pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom.
  11. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not adequately put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about condensation in the downstairs’ bathroom

  1. The resident told the landlord in the stage 1 complaint on 21 November 2023 that there was a problem with condensation in the downstairs bathroom, following its removal of polystyrene tiles in the garages below. This is the first occasion we have seen, of this issue being mentioned. She said this was causing the bathroom floor to become wet and slippery. And had resulted in increased heating costs. The landlord told the resident the same day that it would get back to her. But it did not. The resident had to raise a stage 2 complaint before the landlord acknowledged the resident’s continued concern about this.
  2. The landlord attended the property on 18 January 2024 to discuss the resident’s reasons for complaint. But it did not take a course of action immediately following this, to address this issue. This left the matter unresolved, which was unfair.
  3. The landlord told the resident in the stage 2 complaint response on 22 March 2024 that damp and mould had been identified as an estate wide issue. It explained that it had engaged a surveying contractor to carry out a structural survey of the estate and of individual properties, to establish the cause of this. This was encouraging. The landlord said its aim was to put together a scope of works to tackle the underlying causes of the damp and mould, rather than just treating the effects. The landlord clarified that this would be a long-term project, to manage the resident’s expectations. And committed to keeping all of its residents updated.
  4. It commented that the removal of polystyrene tiles in the garage area had been carried out for health and safety reasons. But it accepted this may be contributing to the problems she was experiencing with condensation. The landlord said it would ask its surveyor to consider the likely impact of removing these tiles on heating costs. It added that any compensation payable was likely to be considered as part of its wider review. This was a reasonable approach in the given circumstances.
  5. However, the landlord did not consider if there a course of immediate action it was able to take pending its wider review, to support the resident with the problems she was experiencing with condensation and to mitigate the risk of slips or falls. This was inappropriate given the landlord’s statutory duty to keep the property free from hazards, in accordance with the Housing Fit for Human Habitation Act 2018.
  6. It was positive that the landlord recognised in the stage 2 complaint response, that the resident had expended time and trouble progressing this matter. And that it awarded £125 compensation in recognition of this. This was proportionate to the level of involvement the resident had with the landlord concerning this matter, up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response.
  7. While beyond the timeframe of this complaint, we note the landlord met with the resident in January 2025 where this matter was discussed. The landlord updated the resident on the action it was taking to address the issues she was experiencing with condensation on the lower floor of the property. And offered her £1,000 compensation in recognition of the discomfort she and her family had experienced, as a result of it removing the polystyrene tiles from the garages. We note that the landlord has recently send a general letter to all of its residents providing a major works update, which sets out its next steps in relation this issue.
  8. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about condensation in the downstairs bathroom fell short. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about this issue in a timely manner. It did not consider if there were any interim steps that it could take to improve the situation for the resident and mitigate risk. But it did make a reasonable offer of compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble progressing the matter up to issue to the stage 2 complaint response. And it committed to a longer-term course of action to resolve the cause of the problem for the resident.
  9. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman find service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about condensation in the downstairs bathroom.
  10. The landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation, in recognition the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about condensation in the downstairs bathroom. This compensation is inclusive of the £125 compensation the landlord awarded at stage 2, in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
  11. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where have been failures in the service the landlord has provided and the landlord’s offer of compensation does not quite reflect the detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 2 working days and will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints with 5 working days and will issue the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
  2. The resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction on 21 November 2023. The resident said the landlord had failed to address her latest report about water ingress from the neighbour’s garden balcony, her reports about mould and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom, and her concerns about condensation in the downstairs bathroom. The landlord told the resident on the same day, that it would get back to her but it did not. And we note the landlord did not open a stage 1 complaint. This was inappropriate and left the resident unclear about the landlord’s intentions.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to raise a stage 2 complaint on 27 December 2023 after she received no response from the landlord. The landlord asked the resident if she wanted it to open a new stage 1 complaint or “hold off” and wait for an inspection. It is not in the spirit of the Code or in line the landlord’s complaint policy, to suggest a course of action that would delay logging an expression of dissatisfaction.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 28 December 2023 that her email of 21 November 2023 was her stage 1 complaint, as it was titled “complaint”. The landlord told the resident it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 once a member of its staff had met with the resident and established the issues for resolution. It was appropriate for the landlord to check its understanding of the complaint if it was unclear and for it to agree the scope of the complaint with the resident. However, the landlord could not offer the resident an appointment until 12 January 2024, which exceed its expected timescale for issuing the stage 2 acknowledgement.
  5. The landlord met the resident to discuss the complaint on 18 January 2024 as the resident was unable meet the resident on 12 January 2024. The landlord has not provided us with any records from its meeting with the resident, showing what it discussed and what was agreed during this meeting. The landlord did not send a complaint acknowledgement following this meeting in line with its policy and the Code, setting out the scope of the complaint, the stage the complaint was at, and an expected date for issuing the full complaint response. This was inappropriate and again left the resident unclear on the landlord’s intentions.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 3 on 22 February 2024 when the landlord did not provide her with a stage 2 complaint response. As the landlord did not have 3 formal complaint stages, it committed to re-opening the stage 2 complaint. But again, caveated that it would do this, once the resident confirmed the issues she wanted including. It was understandable the resident questioned on 26 February 2024 why the landlord did not already know what her outstanding matters of complaint were, given the landlord had recently attended the property to discuss this. The resident was put to avoidable inconvenience having to itemise all of the outstanding issues again.
  7. The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgment 5 working days later, in line with its policy. The landlord said it would issue the full complaint response within 20 working days, which it did.
  8. As previously referenced, the landlord made a separate offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience, amounting to £250. It was unhelpful that it did not explain how it had apportioned this compensation between each complaint point. This made it more difficult for the resident, and for us, to assess the adequacy of the compensation it awarded. We have made a recommendation later in relation to this.
  9. We note the landlord met with the resident in January 2025 after we asked the landlord to provide evidence to support our investigation. The landlord made several commitments of action to address outstanding issues and made an additional offer of compensation. We were encouraged by the landlord’s attempts to put things right for the resident independently of any investigation carried out by us. But we note that the landlord also requested the resident withdraw her complaint from the Housing Ombudsman Service. Again, this is not within the spirit of the Code.
  10. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because there were multiple failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, which adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to recognise there were any failings in its complaint handing and it made no attempt to put things right.
  11. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation, in accordance with our remedies guidance. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the inadequacies we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden, and associated repairs.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about condensation in the downstairs bathroom.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
  2. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to pay £1,000 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £750 if the landlord has already paid the £250 compensation it previously offered at stage 2. This compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £450 compensation, in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress from the neighbour’s balcony garden, and associated repairs. This includes the £125 compensation the landlord previously offered at stage 2 for time and trouble.
    2. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by inadequacies in landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and peeling paint in the upstairs bathroom.
    3. £200 compensation, in recognition the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about condensation in the downstairs bathroom. This compensation is inclusive of the £125 compensation the landlord awarded at stage 2, in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
    4. £150 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. Within 4 weeks the landlord must complete the mould treatment and redecoration works, it committed to completing at stage 2. The landlord should also write to the resident and set out its position on whether the extractor fan needs to be replaced. If the extractor fan does need replacing it should set out a timescale for completing these works also in writing.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reflect on the issues that surfaced in this case in relation to its complaint handling and apply any learnings.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord carry out a further damp and mould survey to the property after the mould treatment is completed.