London Borough of Wandsworth (202442912)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442912

London Borough of Wandsworth

14 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of excess condensation in the property.
2. The resident’s reports of excess cold in the property.
3. The resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant at the property since 16 August 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a sheltered scheme. It is situated above an open storage area which has latticed brickwork on one side and railings on the other to allow access to storage sheds.
On 29 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that there was water ingress into the property through the floor. An operative attended on 31 December 2021 but found no leaks. At a further inspection on 18 January 2022 the landlord concluded that the issue was caused by condensation. On 27 January 2022 it placed an order for a contractor to fit a positive input ventilation (PIV) system. However, in July 2022 the landlord noted that the resident told it that she did not want the unit fitted.
Between 21 November 2022 and 21 December 2022 internal landlord emails identified that the floors in the property were slippy due to excessive water build up and that the property was cold. The repairs team asked the housing officer to encourage the resident to reconsider the PIV system installation. The resident agreed to this on 29 December 2022. However, the contractor was unable to fit the system on 6 February 2023 because a kitchen cupboard was obstructing the electrical source so either the cupboard or the electrics needed to be moved. On 10 March 2023 the landlord inspected the property and agreed an alternative location for the PIV system. A contractor installed it on 19 December 2023.
On 15 January 2024 the resident reported that water was still pooling on the floors and that she had been hospitalised due to a fall. She asked the landlord to insulate the void space beneath the property.
On 24 June 2024 the resident complained about the temperature and condensation within the property. She said that:
1. Due to the storage space underneath, the property was exposed to the wind and cold weather as there was no insulation.
2. She had fallen and hurt herself several times due to the condensation that collected on the cold floor if she used the radiators.
3. Between February and April 2023, she had had to replace her furniture due to moisture and damp ruining them.
4. The PIV system had not resolved the issue.
5. Neighbours had told her that both previous residents of the property had had the same issue and her next-door neighbour also had the same problem.
The landlord provided a response to the resident on 9 July 2024. It said that:
1. While it noted that she had said that the PIV system had made no difference, during a meeting in March 2024 she had told it that condensation was no longer forming on the window or door frames.
2. It was currently surveying the area underneath the property. However, insulation would be major work which might take some time.
3. It would hold a meeting on 17 July 2024 to consider further measures that it could carry out to improve the insulation. It would update her after this meeting.
4. She should check if the damage to her furniture was covered by her contents insurance.
On 17 July 2024 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its response as it had been aware of the situation for 3 years and had not resolved the issues. On 18 July 2024 the landlord sent a letter to the resident which acknowledged that she had made a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delay in fitting the PIV system. However, officers had taken the correct action in upgrading the ventilation within her home before considering further measures for the void space below the property.
2. While it thought the void space beneath the property might be a contributing factor, any work to this area would be major and require extensive planning.
3. It had instructed a contractor to fit insulation boards beneath the property. The target date for completion of this work was 11 October 2024. She should monitor the situation and let it know if this improved the temperature and condensation in her home.
4. A contractor would contact her to arrange adjustment of the PIV settings.
5. She should make a claim for her damaged belongings via its third–party liability insurance if she thought it had been negligent. It provided a link for her to do so.
6. It offered £100 compensation for the delays and lack of communication that she had experienced.
7. It would remind the team of the importance of responding to correspondence in a timely manner and provide extra training to officers on providing information about operating PIV systems.
On 8 October 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that:
1. A contractor had attended on 8 August 2024 and said that the radiators needed to be adjusted and a thermostat put in the bedroom. However, they had not returned.
2. The contractor had not adjusted the PIV system as promised.
3. £100 was not sufficient for the damage caused to her belongings.
4. Her health had deteriorated due to the cold and condensation in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint response on 8 October 2024 and responded on 1 November 2024. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delays she had experienced.
2. The heating contractor had attended on 21 October 2024 and ordered parts. They would return to replace some radiator valves and move the room thermostat after the resident returned from holiday.
3. A contractor had inspected the PIV system and it was working correctly. However, for it to work effectively the heating needed to be functioning properly.
4. It had offered £100 compensation for the delays and lack of communication. It would increase this offer to £300.
5. The resident could claim for her damaged belongings via its third-party liability insurance.
6. An officer would contact her in mid-December to get an update on the condition of her home.
In December 2024 the landlord discovered that water was still pooling on the resident’s floor. It noted that she had no floor coverings and she advised it that she had removed the carpets due to the condensation. It has advised this Service that it installed a thermal barrier and 10mm thick laminate flooring throughout the property on 12 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact the ongoing issue had on her health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this. However, we are unable to decide about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of condensation and cold and the resident’s health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
The Scheme states that we will not investigate complaints which in our opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within our authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Condensation

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, and installations for the provision of heating and water.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says that the officer carrying out inspections should consider various courses of action including:
1. Taking moisture meter readings.
2. Completing inspections of the external structure.
3. Considering if insulation can be improved.
4. Considering installation of a PIV system.
5. Checking dew points and the internal temperatures of the external surfaces.
6. Considering if any radiators are correctly sized and located and if the heating system is working properly.
The resident first reported that there was an issue with water pooling on the floors of the property on 29 December 2021. The landlord responded to this report within a reasonable timeframe and ordered a PIV system. It is unclear why the resident decided not to have it fitted at that time. When the resident made this decision, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact her to discuss the implications of this and to resolve any issues. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so which meant that the problem was on-going and she had to take time and trouble reporting the issue again.
We have also seen no evidence that the landlord took any other course of action recommended in its damp and mould procedure, or that it noted any reasons for it not doing so. Had it discovered the severity of the situation by taking meter readings and considered insulation and the heating system at an earlier stage the problem may have been resolved sooner. This failure to follow its own procedure meant that the resident was living with the intermittent problem of condensation on the floor for longer than necessary, causing her distress and inconvenience.
It was a year later, in December 2022, that the resident agreed to have the PIV system fitted. By this time, she had reported that she had slipped due to the excessive water build up and had to keep towels on the floor to soak up the condensation. However, there was a further delay due to an issue with finding a suitable location for the PIV system. Reasonably, the landlord should have discussed where it would place the system when it ordered it. However, it failed to do so. The landlord then revisited the property, which cost the resident further time and trouble, and found a suitable location for the PIV system. However, it then took a further 9 months to fit the system and we have seen no explanation for this delay.
The lengthy and unacceptable delay in fitting the PIV system meant that the landlord failed to identify that it needed to take other actions to resolve the condensation problem at an earlier stage. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience because she was living with the on-going issue.
In January 2024, after the PIV system was fitted, the resident told the landlord that the problem had not been resolved and she was having to mop the floor every 2-3 days to remove the excess water. The senior housing officer asked the housing officer and maintenance manager to visit the property at that time but this visit did not take place. This was a missed opportunity to witness the issue and decide what further action the landlord could take.
In February 2024 the resident told the landlord that there was no condensation currently on the windows and the landlord decided that this meant that the PIV system was working. However, as the problem was worse in colder weather the landlord should have checked again and continued to monitor the situation but we have seen no evidence that it did so. This cost the resident further time and trouble because she then complained.
Following the stage 2 complaint response the landlord fitted insulation boards beneath the property. It also closed off the lattice brick work to the storage area to stop the through draught and minimise the cold. However, this also did not resolve the issue. It has since installed a thermal barrier and 10mm laminate flooring throughout the property. These were appropriate actions to take. However, due to the lack of follow up and long delays in fitting the PIV system, this work was not completed until 3 years and 5 months after the resident first reported the issue. This was an unacceptable delay during which time the resident was intermittently living in conditions that were a possible health and safety concern.
Due to the landlord’s failure to follow its procedure, follow-up on the resident’s decision not to install the PIV system initially, and the subsequent delays there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of excess condensation in the property. It offered £300 compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process to reflect the delays and its lack of communication. However, this was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of its failings which led to her intermittently living in unsatisfactory conditions. We have therefore ordered it to pay her £800 compensation to reflect this. We have also ordered it to inspect the effectiveness of the new thermal barrier and laminate flooring during the winter.

Cold

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Excess cold is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether excess cold in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
There is evidence that the resident first reported that her property was cold in December 2022 when she went into the club room at her sheltered housing complex and explained that she had to wear gloves, even when the heating was on. We have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the issue or that a contractor attended following this report. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered its duties under HHSRS. This failure to act meant that she was living in conditions which were causing her distress.
The resident next reported that the heating was lukewarm on 5 October 2023. An engineer attended within a reasonable timeframe and adjusted the temperature on the boiler.
The resident reported the issue again on 30 November 2023 and an engineer attended within a reasonable time and found the system working. Following this visit a request was made for a surveyor to attend the property, which they did on 19 December 2023, although we have seen no evidence of the outcome of this visit.
It is apparent that the landlord did not provide feedback to the resident regarding this inspection because in her complaint she asked what the outcome of the visit of the 19 December 2023 was. As she made the complaint 6 months later this was a communication failure on the landlord’s part which cost the resident time and trouble. In its second complaint response (which it called a stage 1 response) the landlord said that the surveyor had proposed relocating the thermostat to the living room which could help manage the temperature and reduce the moisture levels in the property. However, it said that this would be considered an improvement and an officer would advise her whether this would be completed as soon as possible.
Following this a further survey was completed on 1 August 2024 but again we have seen no evidence that the landlord updated the resident or took any further action at that time. This cost her further time and trouble escalating the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, 2 months later. She told it that the contractor had advised that parts would be fitted and the thermostat moved.
Following this the contractor tried to contact the resident on 21, 22, and 29 October 2024 but she was travelling and could not take the call. The work was finally completed on 8 November 2024 which was nearly 2 years after the resident first reported the issue.
Due to the lengthy delay in resolving the problem, the landlord’s poor communication throughout the process, and its failure to consider its duties under HHSRS there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of excess cold. We have ordered it to pay the resident £400 to reflect the distress, time, and trouble this caused her.

Damage to belongings

The resident first reported damage to her bed and sofa caused by the wet floors on 9 January 2023. The sheltered housing officer observed the damage on a visit and sent an email to a colleague asking for action to be taken. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to give her any advice regarding the damaged belongings following this report. This failure meant that the resident had to take time and trouble to complain.
The landlord’s first response to the resident’s complaint advised her to check her own content’s insurance. Therefore, the landlord did not give details on how to claim on its insurance until 30 July 2024, which was 18 months after the resident first advised it about the damage. This failure meant that the resident was living with damaged belongings for a prolonged period which reasonably would have caused her distress.
Due to the landlord’s failure to signpost the resident to its insurance company at an earlier date there was service failure in its handling of her reports of damage to her belongings. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, and distress this caused. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss whether a claim would still be appropriate and to assist with the process if applicable.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that a complaints process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is because it makes the process unduly long and delays access to this Service. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Code and specifies that it has a 2-stage complaint process.
However, in this case, the landlord provided 3 responses to the resident’s complaint. It is unclear why it did not refer to its first complaint response as a stage 1 complaint and then provided a further 2 complaint responses. The landlord’s failure to follow the Code and its policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which cost her time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint twice. It also delayed her access to an investigation by us.
The Code also says that the landlord should follow any remedies offered to residents through to completion.
The landlord said in its first stage 1 complaint response that it would update her about insulation options after a meeting on 17 July 2024. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. In it’s second stage 1 complaint response it said that it would confirm whether it would consider relocating the temperature thermostat and that a contractor would attend to adjust the PIV system. However, the resident had to take time and trouble escalating the complaint because the complaint handler did not ensure that these actions were followed through.
Due to the landlord’s failure to follow the Code and its policy there was maladministration in it’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It is noted that following contact from this Service, the landlord revised its offer of compensation and offered £50 to reflect its error in providing an extra complaint response. However, this was offered after the complaints process was exhausted and followed awareness of our intention to investigate the complaint. We do not consider that it reflects the time and trouble caused to the resident and therefore we order it to pay £100 compensation to her to reflect this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Excess condensation.
2. Excess cold.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly a total of £1,400 compensation comprising:
1. £800 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of excess condensation.
2. £400 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of excess cold.
3. £100 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by its handling of her request for compensation due to damaged belongings.
4. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.

This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350 which should be deducted from the total if already paid.

The landlord must inspect the property during December 2025 and January 2026 to assess the effectiveness of the new thermal barrier and laminate flooring during the winter. It should provide evidence of these inspections and any observations to us and the resident within 7 days of the inspections.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must contact the resident to find out if she made a claim against its insurance as advised. If not, it should support her to do so if this option is still available.
The landlord must review the 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. Why the resident’s initial report of excess cold was not responded to.
2. Current guidance for staff regarding advice given to resident’s that advise that their belongings have been damaged.
3. Why an extra complaint response was provided and consideration into possible extra training for complaints handing staff.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the relevant timeframes.