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 Tower Hamlets (202329830)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329830

Tower Hamlets Homes

30 April 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 resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property, which is a 3-bedroom third floor flat, since 2012.
  2. On 20 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that water poured down the external wall of her flat every time it rained because the gutter hopper was not aligned with the gutter. She said this was causing damp inside the property.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord 9 times between 14 December 2022 and 22 March 2023to chase completion of the repair. She told the landlord that the wallpaper in her lounge was coming off and mould was growing.
  4. The resident complained on 22 March 2023. She said that:
    1. The gutter hopper was allowing water to flow behind it directly down the external wall of the property causing water ingress to her lounge.
    2. She had reported this 4 times in the past 10 years but repairs had been ineffective and the damp had returned each time after she had redecorated.
    3. Each time the problem reoccurred mould grew on the internal wall and there was rust on the electrical sockets. She had to pay the excess on the insurance claim for internal work. She also had to pay for electricity to run a dehumidifier and had the inconvenience and mess of having the plaster hacked off.
    4. She had reported the latest issue in November 2022 but the landlord had not taken any action. Contractors had erected scaffolding on 16 December 2022 but the landlord had told her this was not for her job, it was for a damp issue in a neighbour’s flat. However, she thought the damp in the neighbour’s flat was caused by the same issue.
    5. The landlord had told her that it would erect scaffolding for her job during week commencing 27 February 2023, but it had not. Now the scaffolding that had been in place previously had also been removed.
    6. She had tried to call the landlord that day but had been waiting on hold for 2 hours.
    7. She would like the issue fixed properly so it would not occur again. She would also like compensation for 8 years of stress, and a refund for all the insurance excess payments and extra electricity used.
  5. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 1 complaint on 23 March 2023 and responded on 5 April 2023. It acknowledged that the service she had received had fallen below its usual expectations. It said that:
    1. Contractor A had attended the property on 15 March 2023 and found that scaffolding was already in place but another contractor had erected it. Therefore, contractor A could not use it without carrying out numerous safety checks and re-submitting plans which would have caused additional delays.
    2. Contractor A had therefore arranged for further scaffolding to be erected on 29 March 2023 and it would update the resident about the work carried out no later than 11 April 2023.
    3. An operative would attend the site on 21 April 2023 to repoint the brickwork behind the gutters which was contributing to the damage caused inside the property.
    4. It noted that her property had sustained internal damage and this had impacted her emotionally because she had to chase it for updates and it apologised for this.
    5. It provided details on how to claim via its insurance for damage to her property.
  6. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 24 April 2023 and 2 May 2023. She also asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 2 May 2023. She said that contractors had completed work on the wrong hopper and asked when work would be completed to the correct one. On 19 May 2023 she asked the landlord to acknowledge that it had received her complaint escalation request.
  7. An internal landlord email dated 2 June 2023 noted that the resident had tweeted 67 times on its Twitter feed that day regarding the outstanding repair. The landlord emailed the resident that day to acknowledge receipt of her request to escalate the complaint and offered her £20 compensation for the delay with this.
  8. On 6 June 2023 a supervisor inspected the property. A further job was raised to review and repair the brickwork and pointing to the front and side of the property. Scaffolding was erected on 4 August 2023 and contractors completed work to seal the brickwork on 16 August 2023.
  9. The resident chased the stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2023 and 6 September 2023. She sent the landlord a spread sheet on which she had listed the physical and emotional costs she felt she had incurred during the previous 10 years and requested compensation of £61,559 for these.
  10. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2023. It said that:
    1. The supervisor had inspected the property on 6 June 2023 and contractor B had cleared the hopper and replaced the section of cast iron pipe directly below it.
    2. A larger scaffold was then erected for bricklayers to repoint and brick seal the brickwork and re-mastic the windows.
    3. The resident had recently reported that the hopper was overflowing again and contractors had attended and cleared this.
    4. It apologised for any inconvenience this had caused and directed her to its insurance company if she felt that she had sustained loss or damage to her home due to negligence by it or its contractors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. There is evidence that the resident reported that the same hopper was defective, causing water ingress to the property, in 2019 and 2021. At that time, she told the landlord that she had also reported the same issue 4 times over the previous 7.5 years. Although this provides historical context to the issues experienced in this case, we have not considered the landlord’s response to these reports in this investigation. This is in accordance with the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Therefore, our investigation has focussed on the resident’s reports of the leak in November 2022 which was prior to her complaint of March 2023.
  2. The resident described the effect the leak had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. However, we have considered whether she experienced any general distress due to any errors made by the landlord.

Leak, damp, and mould

  1. The lease confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the main structure of the building including the exterior walls, drains, gutters, and water pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as ‘emergency’ (attend within 24 hours) and ‘routine’ (complete within 20 working days). The policy notes that some types of works will not be able to be completed within 20 working days due to their complexity, and that it will keep its tenants updated on their progress. An example given of work that would require more time is when the erection of scaffolding is required before the work can go ahead.
  3. The landlord attended the property 12 working days after the resident reported that there was an issue on 20 November 2022. This was reasonable and in line with its policy. However, it was unable to resolve the problem and initially ordered a cherry picker to reach the hopper. This was understandable but the landlord did not keep the resident informed about this, as it says it will in its repairs policy. She therefore had to contact it for an update, which cost her time and trouble.
  4. The resident told the landlord that a contractor had erected scaffolding on 16 December 2022. The landlord passed this message onto the contractor that was due to complete the job. However, neither the landlord nor the contractor let the resident know at an early stage that the scaffolding could not be used for her job. This lack of communication led to the resident becoming frustrated. It was evident that she lost faith in the landlord and the repairs process, because she told it that she felt it was a waste of money to put up multiple sets of scaffolding in the same place.
  5. The resident repeatedly chased the repair and there is evidence that each time she did so the landlord would contact the contractor for an update. However, the contractor or the landlord did not then always update her and job remained outstanding. Therefore, the resident had to call back again. This poor communication cost her considerable time and trouble. It is also apparent that it caused her distress and inconvenience from the wording in her correspondence.
  6. The landlord repaired the wrong hopper which caused a further delay. We understand that mistakes can happen, however the landlord should have had processes in place to ensure that the contractor was repairing the correct part of the building. This failing led to a further delay and extra expense to the landlord. It also cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to inform it what had happened.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould said that “landlords should ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The distress and inconvenience experienced by residents in this area is some of the most profound we have seen, and this needs to be reflected in the tone and approach of the complaint handling.”
  8. The resident told the landlord on numerous occasions over many months that the leak was causing damp and mould in her lounge. However, the landlord expressed no empathy regarding this and did not address it within its complaint responses at all. The resident has told us how the sound of rain filled her with dread because of the impact it had on her property and living conditions. The landlord’s lack of empathy and concern over the effects of living with damp and mould over a prolonged period caused her further distress.
  9. The landlord raised a total of 6 different repair jobs on its system for the work carried out in this case. While some jobs were raised to complete follow on work not all were necessary and this led to further confusion. One of the jobs seems to have been raised in response to the resident’s social media posts. However, there was already a job outstanding on the landlord’s system for this work and had it investigated this further it would have seen the cause for the resident’s frustration. When the resident called to chase the work, her requests were logged against several different jobs, rather than just one. This meant that the landlord did not look at the situation as a whole and realise the scale of her contact and longevity of the on-going repair.
  10. Despite the landlord’s compensation policy allowing it to award compensation to resident’s where time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience has been caused we have seen no evidence that it considered awarding compensation for this despite there being evidence to support it. It’s compensation policy also allows the landlord to consider compensation to reimburse the complainant for any general expenses incurred but the landlord did not offer to reimburse the resident for costs incurred by the running of a dehumidifier following the repair.
  11. The repair was outstanding for a total of 9 months during which time the resident lived with damp and mould in her living room. This was an unacceptable delay which caused her a great deal of distress an inconvenience. The landlord showed no empathy for the resident’s living conditions. It signposted her to its insurance company but failed to apologise in a meaningful way or to offer any other form of redress for its failings. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of her reports of water ingress, damp, and mould and we have ordered it to pay £800 compensation to reflect this. We have also ordered it to pay for any increase in electricity costs due to the use of a dehumidifier following the repair, and to review the case to ensure similar failings do not occur in the future. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that its customer relations team will track promises made in complaint responses to make sure it resolves complaints quickly, improves the customer experience, and prevents escalations.
  2. In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord promised to erect scaffolding, update the resident on 11 April 2023, and repair the brickwork on 21 April 2023. Had it tracked these promises to ensure the work was completed the resident would not have had to escalate the complaint. However, it failed to follow its own policy and it did not complete any of the actions within the proposed timeframes. This cost the resident time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. It also says that landlords should manage residents’ expectations from the outset, being clear where a desired outcome is unreasonable or unrealistic.
  4. The landlord did not address all the points raised in the stage 1 complaint. It did not offer an answer regarding her comment that she had been waiting on hold for 2 hours that day. It also did not answer her complaint about previous leaks. Its complaints policy at the time said that it would not answer complaints that concerned events that happened more than 6 months prior to the complaint. However, it did not communicate this to the resident and therefore did not manage her expectations. This meant that the resident felt that the landlord had not fully addressed her complaint and she spent time and trouble escalating it to stage 2 of the process.
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy also said that it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days unless it was a complex case when a further 10 days may be required. This is in line with the Code.
  6. The landlord took 104 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint and it did not arrange an extension with the resident. During this time, she chased a response on several occasions, costing her time and trouble. This lengthy delay and failure to follow the Code meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her further distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy said that complaint responses should be an assessment and evaluation of the events that led up to the complaint.
  8. The stage 2 complaint response did not show any evaluation or assessment of the events that led to the complaint. It just told her that a supervisor had completed an inspection and that contractor’s had carried out some work. The landlord’s failure to follow its policy meant that it did not use the complaints process to learn what errors had occurred and how it could improve processes in the future. It was also unclear whether all the required work was completed and the resident informed us that she was uncertain about this and therefore continued to feel apprehensive every time it rained.
  9. The landlord failed to follow its own policy and the Code which caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of her complaint. We have ordered it to pay her £400 compensation to reflect this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior member of staff must apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord must pay £1,200 compensation directly to the resident, comprising:
    1. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failures in handling her reports of water ingress, damp, and mould.
    2. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
    3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £20.
  3. The landlord must contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to ask for evidence of extra electricity used for a dehumidifier to dry out the internal wall following the repair covered in this report. It should refund the resident for any identified increase within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. A senior member of staff must review this case within 10 weeks of the date of this report. It must provide a report to identify how its failings in this case will inform and implement changes to avoid the following errors re-occurring in the future:
    1. Repair of wrong area on a large building.
    2. Communication failures.
    3. Multiple repairs jobs ongoing on its systems for the same job.
    4. Delays in escalation of complaints.
    5. Complaints handlers not following the Code or its policies.
    6. Complaints handlers use of the compensation policy.
  5. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.