Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202346967)

Decision
Case ID	202346967
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 March 2026

Background

The resident had reported damp and mould in her property since November 2022. The landlord inspected and completed some works but the damp kept coming back.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and the associated works.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and the associated works.
2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:

Reports of damp and mould and the associated works

Delayed in completing a mould wash in November 2022. Responded within its published timescales to reports of damp and mould in November 2023. Took too long to repair/replace the ventilation system. Failed to keep the resident updated in relation to the works and progress. Completed the major works within a reasonable timescale. Failed to consider contributing towards the resident’s damaged items.

Complaint handling

Failed to outline its understanding of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes sought at both stages of the complaint. Sent its stage 2 complaint response late. Failed to recognise any complaint handling failures in its complaint responses.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and associated works. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 April 2026
3	The landlord must reconsider the resident’s request for compensation for the personal belongings damaged by the damp and mould. It should write to the resident by the due date to confirm its decision. If the resident is unhappy with the amount offered she will be able to raise a new complaint.	No later than 27 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 January 2024	The resident complained that despite the landlord completing mould washes the damp and mould had returned. She said the landlord had agreed to complete works in November 2023, which were outstanding. She said the landlord had not kept her updated. She said the damp and mould had damaged her belongings. She said the landlord had not investigated the asbestos it found in the properly.
29 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
9 February 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It accepted it had failed to keep the resident updated about the works and it had chased its contractor about the outstanding works. It said it would complete another inspection on 13 February 2024. It referred the resident to its insurance team in relation to her damaged belongings.
12 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy because the works were outstanding and there had been poor communication from the landlord. She said the insurance company had refused her claim and told her to go back to the landlord. She was still concerned about asbestos in the property and the removal of it.
13 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
8 April 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had arranged major works, which were almost complete. The surveys and removal of asbestos were an ongoing part of construction work. It agreed it could have co-ordinated the works and communicated with the resident better to reassure her. It offered £300 compensation and provided dates when it would complete the works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to increase the amount of compensation offered. She also wanted it to compensate her for the furniture and belongings which the damp and mould had damaged.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and the associated works
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

In a recent telephone call, the resident told us the damp and mould had returned. We have looked at everything up to 15 May 2024. This is when the landlord said it finished the works it promised in its complaint responses. Any problems that happened after this date, and have not been raised in a formal complaint, should be taken up with the landlord as a new complaint if needed.

What we have investigated

The resident first reported damp and mould in both bedrooms on 7 November 2022. The landlord did not attend until 17 January 2023. The operative failed to call the resident 10 minutes before arriving, as instructed, so there was no access. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 21 April 2023 and completed a mould wash. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at this time. However, it should have responded within a reasonable timescale. It took 48 working days to attend the first appointment and a further 67 working days to attend the second. Both delays were unreasonable and it should have attended sooner.
The resident reported the damp and mould had returned on 8 November 2023. The landlord inspected on 16 November 2023 and completed a mould wash on 1 December 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, introduced in February 2023,id not set an inspection timescale. It required works to be completed within its repair timescales, 20-working days. Inspecting and completing the mould wash within 12 working days was reasonable.
The landlord has not provided its 16 November 2023 inspection report, so we cannot confirm what it found. It raised a repair to overhaul the bathroom fan on 21 November 2023. The landlord left the resident a voicemail stating the contractor would attend on 29 November 2023. The contractor arrived on that date but could not gain access. A voicemail did not amount to a confirmed appointment, and the landlord did not meet its repair service standard to arrange a convenient time with the resident.
On 14 December 2023 the contractor identified a faulty whole‑house ventilation system that required renewal. It attended another appointment in January 2024 but conducted no work. Records indicate the landlord completed the ventilation renewal by the end of February 2024. This was 3 and a half months after the landlord identified an issue with the ventilation in the property. Although specialist works can take longer, the landlord should have updated the resident and given revised timescales. It did not do this. Further inconvenience was caused because the resident waited at home for appointments when contractors lacked the correct parts.
The resident reported damp again on 22 December 2023. The landlord inspected on 10 January 2024, raised a further mould wash, and completed that work on 17 January 2024 within its 20‑working‑day target. It conducted a post‑inspection on 24 January 2024 and identified a need to investigate the external wall.
On 29 January 2024 the resident reported cracks in several rooms. The landlord conducted repairs on 2 April 2024. Although this exceeded its repair timescales, responsibility is unclear because it is not evident whether the resident asked the landlord to rearrange an earlier appointment on 7 February 2024. The landlord also had to rearrange a second appointment because the resident had not moved her furniture to provide access, as required under her tenancy agreement.
The resident became aware of the presence of asbestos in January 2024 and raised understandable concerns about health risks. Homes built in the late 20th century commonly contain asbestos, and her anxiety about her family’s safety was reasonable.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an asbestos survey before starting works and completed it on 5 February 2024. It also arranged further surveys and asbestos removal as works progressed in March 2024 and April 2024.
At stage 1, the landlord confirmed it had completed another inspection on 13 February 2024 to assess damp and mould and investigate the external wall. It found no significant damp or mould except around the kitchen window. On the same day, it identified the following required works:
1. mould wash around the kitchen window
2. installation of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen
3. installation of thermal boarding on bedroom external walls
4. fitting of additional radiators in the bedrooms
5. installation of vents in cupboard doors
6. unblocking of a brick vent in the bedroom
Major works often require flexible timescales, but the landlord should have provided the resident with estimated start and completion dates and updated her regularly. The evidence does not show the landlord did this, which left the resident feeling uninformed.
The landlord began installing thermal boarding during the week of 18 March 2024 and completed the work on 5 April 2024. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would repair the hallway ceiling and clean carpets between 15 April 2024 and 17 April 2024, and complete redecoration during the week of 22 April 2024. It completed all works by 15 May 2024. The resident was unhappy with how long it took the landlord to complete the major works. Although the works were disruptive, a 3-month period (13 February to 15 May 2024) was a reasonable period to complete them.
When a resident reports damage to their belongings caused by a landlord’s failings, the landlord can either refer the claim to its insurer or consider it under its discretionary compensation policy. In this case, the landlord referred the resident to its insurer, which aligned with its policy. However, because the landlord knew the insurer might reject the claim, it should also have conducted its own investigation to decide whether to contribute towards the cost of the damaged items. We are aware the landlord replaced the carpet after stage 2 which the resident said the contractors had damaged. But it did not consider the other items which had been damaged by the mould. This was a failing.
In summary, the landlord had been aware of damp and mould since November 2022. It inspected, raised repairs, and conducted mould washes, and it later undertook major improvement works in 2024. However, it delayed the initial mould wash in 2022, took 3 and a half months (16 November 2023 to 27 February 2024) to repair the ventilation system, and failed to keep the resident updated during delays, which caused frustration. It also failed to consider contributing towards the cost of replacing the items damaged by the damp and mould.
When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We must first consider if there were any failings by the landlord and did this lead to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If yes, we will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. Our role is to consider if the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising for the delays, agreeing to complete works, and offering £300 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy. However, it failed to consider the resident’s request for reimbursement of the damaged items, this leads to a finding of maladministration.
A fairer amount would be £400. This reflects our Remedies Guidance which says such a sum would be payable where there had been a failure which adversely affected the resident. It also reflects circumstances where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.
We have also ordered the landlord reconsider the resident’s request for compensation for the damaged items. This is in line with its compensation policy, which allows claims where the resident can provide evidence. Although the resident does not have receipts, she has photographs showing the damage caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2022 edition for stage 1 and the 2024 edition for stage 2. Our findings are:
1. The landlord had a published complaint policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales at each stage.
2. At stage 1 both the acknowledgement and the complaint response were on time.
3. At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on time. It should have sent its complaint response by 12 March 2024 (20 working days after the acknowledgement). It was 19 working days late. The landlord should have spoken to the resident about an extension when it knew it needed more time to complete its investigation. This did not happen. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
4. In addition, the landlord failed to set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcome the resident was seeking at both stages. This was not in line with the Code.
5. Both complaint responses appropriately defined and responded to the issues raised by the resident. The responses were expressed in clear, plain language. However, the landlord failed to recognise its complaint handling failures.
Due to the failures outlined above, there was maladministration. Our Remedies Guidance suggests an award of £100 may remedy such failings which adversely affected the resident. In this case the resident was caused distress and inconvenience by having to chase the landlord for a response at stage 2. The delay also delayed the resident referring the complaint to this Service for investigation.

Learning

The repair records show the landlord frequently left voicemail messages when arranging repair appointments. This is not in line with its repair service standards which says it will arrange a convenient appointment when it raises a repair. The landlord should consider if further training is required to ensure its staff follow this procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide records of its inspections, findings from visits, or repairs conducted. The absence of clear and complete records made it difficult to understand what actions had been taken or why certain decisions were made. Our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management emphasises the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail.

Communication

The landlord’s communication could have been better. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates in relation to the repairs and her complaint, especially earlier on. The landlord should ensure it has a strategy in place for keeping residents informed.