London Borough of Waltham Forest (202424336)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424336

Waltham Forest Council

22 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s mutual exchange.
2. Reports of water ingress, damp and mould.
3. Outstanding repairs.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 4-bedroom semi-detached house.
The resident lives in the property with her husband and 4 children. The resident’s husband suffers from asthma.
The resident moved into the property via mutual exchange on 24 March 2024. The landlord inspected the property for damp and mould and other repairs on 9 April 2024 and raised follow-on works on 15 April 2024.
The landlord attended to unblock the drains on 3 May 2024 and inspected for potential water ingress from the roof on 13 May 2024. The resident continued to report similar issues between May and July 2024. The resident arranged for her own damp and mould survey of the property on 5 July 2024. The landlord attended on 5 July 2024 to inspect the basement and make safe the electrics.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 30 July 2024. She was unhappy with the condition of the property and said she was unsure how this had passed the landlord’s inspection prior to her move. She also felt the landlord failed to properly log or respond to the issues she had raised.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2024. It partially upheld her complaint, agreeing that its damp and mould works took too long. It offered her £150 compensation and agreed to undertake a new inspection. Its compensation offer consisted of £50 for the delays completing repairs, £50 for inconvenience and distress, and £50 for time and trouble.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 August 2024. She felt the compensation was not sufficient for the distress she had experienced and that the property, in its current condition, was not safe for her family to live in.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 September 2024, upholding her complaint. It offered her £450 compensation for its failings. This consisted of its £150 earlier offer, plus an additional £150 for delays and £150 for distress and inconvenience. It agreed that it had not been pro-active enough in completing the works. It said that it had added her to its complex case tracker to ensure it managed all of the outstanding works to completion.
The resident called the Ombudsman in September 2024, asking us to consider her complaint. She said that she wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding works and for it to provide her with a full outline and schedule for these works in the meantime. She also said she wanted compensation for the effect this had on her family’s health.
The resident and landlord have both advised the Ombudsman that a disrepair claim was submitted in late 2024 and the resident is represented by a solicitor. The evidence we have seen indicates that legal proceedings have not started.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that the ongoing issues have had a negative effect on her and her family’s health. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s, or her family’s, ill health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that the landlord’s actions or failures affected her or her family’s health. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, we have taken into consideration any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange

The landlord’s mutual exchange form says that, when exchanging accommodation, ‘a tenant is required to accept the property as seen as vacated by the existing tenant’. It goes on to say that ‘it is therefore important that you thoroughly inspect your exchanging partner’s property and ensure that you are fully aware of the condition that it is in’. The landlord’s mutual exchanges policy says that it will not carry out any general repairs for a new tenant ‘until a period of at least six months has elapsed from the start of a new tenancy’.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it performed a home visit on 22 February 2024. The landlord has said that the purpose of this visit was to verify the tenants’ details, and to note the condition of the property. A form listed all of the fixtures and furniture in the property. It also mentioned that the property was in ‘average condition’.
The resident mentioned – when raising her complaint – that she did not understand how the property could have passed the landlord’s property inspection given the presence of damp and mould. The purpose of the landlord’s visit in this instance was not to assess if any remedial repairs were outstanding, however.
The landlord highlighted that for a mutual exchange, it did not perform a full voids assessment in the way it would when the resident was moving into a property that was previously empty. The landlord said it was the resident’s responsibility to perform an inspection of the property. As per its policy, the resident’s agreement to complete a mutual exchange meant that she was happy to take the property in the condition she saw it.
The landlord’s policy also states that if there are jobs that need doing, the resident should get the previous tenant to raise these prior to moving out of the property. The evidence demonstrates that the previous tenant did raise damp and mould jobs on 22 March 2024. This was 2 days prior to the resident completing the mutual exchange. The landlord followed up on this by inspecting the damp and mould on 9 April 2024. The landlord’s action in performing the inspection after this initial damp and mould report was fair.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange. There is no evidence the landlord failed to undertake any of its obligations. Its paperwork clearly outlines that it is the resident’s decision to take the property in the condition they see it. The landlord’s checks prior to the move are not intend as a full repairs survey but instead an overview of what fittings and furniture remain in the flat. The decision to take the property in the condition it was shown fell with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp and mould

The landlord’s repair policy states that it adopts ‘a zero-based approach when addressing reports’ about damp and mould ‘and will carry out actions to prevent/treat damp and mould, which could include programmed repairs, or responsive repairs’.
The landlord’s website also lists the timescales it will complete repairs in. It says that for emergency repairs it will attend within either 4 hours or 24 hours depending on the severity of the emergency. For all non-emergency repairs, it says it will aim to complete works within 28 working days.
The landlord first inspected the property for damp and mould – as well as for potential water ingress – on 9 April 2024. The landlord has not provided any record of its findings from this inspection. It did however raise follow-on works after this. Between April 2024 and September 2024, the landlord appears to have undertaken several different inspections. However, by the conclusion of the complaints process, it still had not completed, or in some cases begun, works to address these. It is unclear from the evidence provided by the landlord why it has taken so long for it to complete or begin works. The time taken for the landlord to complete works fell outside of the timescales set out in its repairs policy and represents service failure.
It is also unclear why, despite the evidence from its contractors, suggesting there was potential water ingress alongside damp and mould throughout the property, the landlord did not perform a formal survey to diagnose the cause. The landlord’s failure to complete a full formal survey represented a significant failure. It is also the Ombudsman’s opinion that this has hampered the landlord’s ability to co-ordinate a proportionate response to the resident’s reports about water ingress, damp and mould.
The landlord inspected again on 13 May 2024. According to the available notes, it specifically considered damp and mould in the upstairs bedrooms. This inspection suggested that contractors would require scaffolding to perform a more thorough inspection and to diagnose if there was water ingress from the roof. The landlord failed to erect scaffolding and later told the resident that, as it could not locate any water ingress, scaffolding would not be required.
It is unclear why the landlord concluded this as it had not performed any further investigations into the damp and mould on the ceiling. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, it recognised it had told the resident this in error and that it did in fact need to erect scaffolding to inspect the problem. This mistake caused a significant delay in investigating the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s failure to properly diagnose the problem and to arrange a proper inspection represented service failure and meant it did not manage the repair properly.
The earliest evidence of the resident reporting damp in the basement is from 4 June 2024. The resident mentioned on 4 June 2024, and again on 28 June 2024, that there were wet electrics in the basement, and she felt this was not safe. The landlord inspected the basement on 5 July 2024 and performed follow-on works, including a repair to the light in the basement, and making safe the electrics. The contractor’s notes make no mention of any water ingress, stating that no water had been over the surfaces. Nevertheless, the landlord’s response time was unreasonable. It should have treated this as an emergency and responded to this in an appropriate timescale.
The landlord said in its complaint response that it inspected the resident’s basement again on 29 July 2024 and did find water ingress. The cause of this was apparently a leaking radiator in the front room. It removed this from the wall on 30 July 2024 and refitted it on 9 August 2024. The landlord’s records are unclear why it needed 2 separate inspections, or why no water ingress was located at the first appointment.
Despite mention of ongoing damp and mould in the basement, the landlord never undertook any further works to diagnose if this was caused solely by the radiator leak, or if there were other factors causing this. The landlord’s lack of action in relation to the damp and mould in the basement again represented service failure.
The landlord’s failure to properly manage the repairs is further evidenced in its handling of the resident’s requests for thermal boarding. The landlord first raised works to complete this in the front bedroom on 15 April 2024. However, despite several appointments, the landlord and resident disagreed over the location for this when the landlord attended to complete these works on 30 July 2024. These did not go ahead as the resident believed the works were needed to the back bedroom. In any case, there was a delay in the landlord attempting these works. The landlord’s failure to properly communicate with the resident and to ensure the correct works were being co-ordinated represented another service failure.
The resident commissioned an independent damp and mould survey on 5 July 2024. This survey found several issues, including high readings of damp throughout the property, mould throughout the property and potential water ingress in the kitchen and from the roof. Whilst the resident did mention this to the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to see evidence that she provided a copy of this to the landlord. Given the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to say the landlord should have taken any action in relation to this.
Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrates that throughout the period covered by this complaint (March to September 2024), the landlord failed to take appropriate action to fully investigate the reports of water ingress, damp and mould. Given the resident advised a member of the household had asthma and her children’s bedroom were affected, this represented a significant service failure. The landlord did not practice the zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord recognised that it had not done enough in response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould. It offered a total of £450 compensation for its failure to handle the resident’s reports properly. This consisted of £200 for delays in completing all of the repairs (including damp and mould), £200 for distress and inconvenience and £50 for time and trouble.
Given the landlord’s lack of action over a period of 6 months, this compensation figure was insufficient. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £800 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been ‘a failure which had a significant impact on the resident’.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould. It failed to properly diagnose the causes or perform the necessary repairs in order to alleviate the problems. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the vulnerabilities of the household or that it had any coherent plan for managing the resident’s reports.
Since the end of the complaints process, the landlord has advised that progress has been held up due to the resident’s disrepair claim. These events are outside of our jurisdiction as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, the Ombudsman’s 2021 guidance on pre-action protocol for housing condition claims sets out that we expect landlords not to disengage from a repair when a claim is submitted and that a claim does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been ‘issued’. We have therefore made orders below for the landlord to progress repairs and communicate with the resident as it proposed in its final complaint response.
The landlord also indicated that it may not be responsible for repairs due to the implications of a right to buy application. The landlord failed to provide any clarity on this during its complaints process. We have therefore made orders below regarding this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs

In addition to her reports about damp and mould, the resident raised concerns about ongoing blockages to the drains in her garden which she said were causing bad smells. She also reported that a rainwater pipe had come away from the house.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 30 April 2024 to clear the blockage in the drains. At the time, the contractor also noted that the downpipe had come away from the outlet at roof level. The contractor attempted to rectify this but was unable to reconnect the pipework. They recommended that the landlord get roofing contractors to perform this work. The contractor also recommended installing pipework into the gully to stop water splashing from a sink.
The resident reported to the landlord that there were further drain blockages on 15 August 2024. The landlord did not attend to perform any follow-up works on the drains until 10 October 2024. The contractor cleared the blockages and installed new gulley covers. The landlord’s repair on 10 October 2024 appears to have resolved the issue as there is no evidence of further reports made by the resident. However, the timescale for the landlord’s attendance was outside of the timescales set out in its repair policy. This represented service failure.
The landlord raised the recommended works to fit a waste pipe from the kitchen sink outlet to gully on 16 August 2024. It then performed these works on 21 August 2024. This was 3 and a half months after the contractor recommended these works. The landlord’s records do not make it clear why it took so long to raise and complete these works. The timescale fell significantly outside of those specified in its repairs policy.
The landlord records do not make any further mention of works to reconnect the rainwater pipe, although it was clearly aware that this needed attention. There is no record of the landlord completing this repair. It is unclear why the landlord did not take further action. This represented a service failure.
The landlord awarded £450 compensation through the complaints process. We have assessed this above against the failings in its handling of the reports of water ingress, damp and mould. Given the further failings in its handling of the other reported repairs and the apparently incomplete rainwater pipe repair, we have found maladministration and ordered additional compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failures identified in this report;
  2. advise her of the status of any Right to Buy application and how this impacts its responsibility for internal and external repairs;
  3. advise her of the status of her disrepair claim.
2. Pays the resident compensation of £1,200, made up of:
  1. £800, inclusive of its previous offer of £450, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports about damp and mould;
  2. £400 for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of her reports about outstanding repairs.
3. Arranges a damp and mould survey of the entire property, interior and exterior. This should include damp readings and diagnosis of any water ingress and damp and mould. Within 2 weeks of the date of this survey, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a written copy of the report, alongside a full schedule of works for any works recommended. It should provide a point of contact who will offer fortnightly updates to the resident pending completion of the repair.
4. If it has not already completed the repair, the landlord should arrange an inspection of the rainwater pipe. Within 2 weeks of the date of this inspection, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a schedule of works for any works recommended.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its record-keeping practices in relation to repairs. This will ensure that it is able to provide the Ombudsman with full records of all of its visits and inspections.