Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (202524778)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property with her family in September 2023. From December 2023 the resident started raising issues with damp and mould with the landlord.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to identify the cause of the damp and mould over a prolonged period, or remedy this in line with its policies.
5. The landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate for the impact of the failures identified.

The landlords handling of the resident’s associated complaint

6. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales of its policy.
7. The landlord failed to acknowledge or offer redress for its failures.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident told us that this situation affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury she considers has been caused by the landlord.
9. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord’s complaint investigation considered its handling of matters between December 2023, when the resident first reported D&M and when it issued its final response on 22 August 2025. However, it committed to completing outstanding works when it issued its final response. We, have, therefore, also considered whether these works were completed in a reasonable timescale.
11. The landlord had a D&M and a responsive repairs policy in place. Both policies are considered by the landlord in its response to reports of D&M. The D&M policy says that on receipt of a D&M report, it will attend the property to investigate a cause. And where remedial actions are required, these will be completed in line with its responsive repairs policy. Its responsive repairs policy provides timescales in which they aim to complete repairs.

Resident’s report of D&M on 20 December 2023

12. The landlord’s initial attendance to this report on 10 January 2024 was in line with its D&M policy. The landlord has not provided details of its findings; however, we can see from its records that remedial work was completed by 16 January 2024. While the records do not include details of the remedial work completed, the resident has told us the area of D&M was treated and repainted. This was completed in line with its responsive repair policy timescales.
13. The landlord also instructed a plumber to attend on 12 January 2024 to investigate a potential leak. However, on the day, they called the resident and cancelled and rescheduled the appointment for 15 January 2024. The plumber failed to attend on 15 January 2024, and the resident called the landlord the following day to reschedule. This was a service failure, which was likely to have caused additional inconvenience to the resident. Despite the missed appointments, this was attended in line with policy timescales.
14. On 18 January 2024 the plumber reported to the landlord that it required a gas specialist to check the condense pipe on the boiler and that a repair/assessment was required on blown plaster.
15. The gas specialist attended on 23 January 2024, in line with policy timescales. However, there were no notes recorded in the landlord’s repair notes; therefore, it is unclear what action, if any was completed.
16. The landlord has not provided evidence that it attended to the blown plaster. This was a further failure.

Resident’s report of D&M on 7 March 2024

17. The landlord responded in line with its policy by arranging a healthy home’s inspection on 22 March 2024. The landlord has not provided a copy of this inspection or updated its repair records with its findings. Therefore, we are unable to establish what follow up action, if any, was requested or assess if any action was completed in line with its policy timescales.
18. The records show that the landlord instructed its contractor to inspect a potential leak from the boiler on 11 April 2024. This was attended to on 24 April 2024, 22 May and completed on 24 May 2024, 30 working days later. This was not in line with its responsive repairs policy in which it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. While the repair records do not contain details of the findings other evidence shows that the investigations ruled out the heating system or the boiler being the cause of the D&M. It was the view of the contractor that the D&M was coming from under the floor.
19. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it took any further action to investigate the cause of the D&M, and this was a failure.

Housing officer’s report of D&M on 26 June 2024

20. The landlord’s initial response in arranging an inspection on 4 July 2024 was in line with its policy. However, the landlord has again not provided a copy of this inspection or updated its repair records with its findings. Therefore, we are unable to establish what follow up work was requested.
21. The records do, however, show that from 22 July 2024 the landlord attempted to make an appointment with the resident for this work. The records note that the resident was unable to confirm an appointment and this repair request was closed on 29 August 2024. This was not appropriate, given the landlord was aware the D&M issues had been outstanding since March 2024, and it had a duty to address it.

Resident’s report of D&M on 6 November 2024

22. The landlord has not provided repair records for this period, however, other evidence provided shows that it attended on 4 December 2024 to trace and rectify a leak in the utility room, complete a D&M inspection and provide dehumidifiers. The landlord has not provided any details of its findings. The resident’s recollection of this was that a minor leak was repaired under the utility sink.
23. There is no evidence that any further action was taken at this time and this was a failure.

June 2025

24. In its complaint responses, the landlord noted that, on 6 June 2025, a job was raised to inspect a leak in the utility room but was cancelled on 20 June 2025. However, in her stage 1 complaint, on 23 June 2025, the resident says a plumber had attended a few weeks before. She said he had checked for, but had not found, any leaks and after lifting a section of the carpet, the resident says he told her he would advise the landlord that the floor needed to be checked.

June 2025 – September 2025

25. The landlord instructed a plumber to inspect for a leak. The repair records do not provide details of their findings. However, in its stage 1 complaint response, issued on 21 July 2025, the landlord said that, on 18 July 2025, the plumber had reported that there were no active leaks, the floor had mould, and that 3 walls of the property were exposed to the elements. He also suggested that nearby trees should be trimmed.
26. This also said that, on the same day, its surveyor had inspected the property and instructed a list of work to be completed, along with a commitment to complete a joint D&M inspection with contractor.
27. In her request to escalate the complaint the resident expressed dissatisfaction that there was no timescale provided for the work to be completed. The evidence shows that the landlord scheduled the joint inspection and the start of the work for 18 August 2025, 21 working days after its inspection. This was not a reasonable start date, given the landlord’s responsive repairs policy aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days, and this was the first appointment.
28. This appointment was, however, rescheduled by the resident for 26 August 2025. And while the landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to confirm this appointment, it failed to provide any further appointment dates.
29. The evidence shows that on 5 September 2025 the landlord amended the schedule of required works. However, despite various investigations to identify the cause of the D&M both the resident and landlord have confirmed that work has not been completed. This investigation can, therefore, conclude that the work the landlord committed to in its complaint responses has not been completed in a reasonable time.

Damage to personal items

30. The resident told us that the D&M has caused damage to her personal property and she would like to be compensated. The landlord’s compensation policy says that claims for damages to belongings or personal injury will be dealt with by its insurance department.
31. It was, therefore, appropriate that the landlord provided its insurers details in its complaint responses. The resident has confirmed that she has not yet made this claim as she understood it may not cover damage caused by D&M.

Overall

32. This investigation has identified significant failings in the handling of the resident’s D&M reports. The landlord repeatedly failed to resolve the D&M issues during the 19-month investigation period. This meant the D&M issue became worse and spread into other living areas of the property. The landlord missed the opportunity to resolve matters before it did, and the resident lived with the issues for longer than necessary.
33. Where there are failings by a landlord, we will consider what it did to put things right. In this case, the landlord offered an apology and compensation as redress.
34. The resident lived with D&M issues and outstanding repairs for 19 months. The resident had the trouble of having to report the issues and had the inconvenience of multiple visits to inspect and resolve the issues.
35. The resident and her family have medical vulnerabilities, and, because of these, they experienced significant worry about the effect the issues had on their physical health. We do, however, understand the landlord was not aware of this until the resident raised her complaint.
36. The impact of this worry became greater in July 2025 when the resident was diagnosed with a serious illness. She has told us that, due to ongoing treatment, she has asked the landlord not to arrange appointments on specific days, but contractors have still attended. This is likely to have caused additional distress. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
37. While we are not considering beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response, we acknowledge that this impact will continue until the issues are resolved and we have made recommendations in relation to this. We also acknowledge that the landlord has a planned site visit on 26 February 2026 and our order reflects this.
38. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100-£600 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident.
39. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified and we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation to better reflect the impact on the resident.

40. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
41. The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
42. The resident raised her initial complaint on 23 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged this in line with the timescales of the Code.
43. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 July 2025, 19 working days after it’s acknowledgment. This was not in line with the code, and the landlord has not provided any evidence that it explained or agreed this delay with the resident. Additionally, the landlord failed to acknowledge this failure in its complaint responses.
44. The resident requested her complaint was escalated on 21 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 22 July 2025 in line with the Code.
45. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 August 2025, 23 working days after its acknowledgment. This was not in line with the Code, and the landlord has not provided any evidence that it explained or agreed this delay with the resident. This was a further failure.
46. The Code says that when something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. The landlord’s complaint responses do not evidence it did this or that it conducted a thorough investigation.
47. Rather than identify and explain its failures, both responses listed the repair visits with no additional comment or explanation of what had gone wrong. While the responses informed the resident what it would do to put things right, it did not provide timescales for this, and this was a shortcoming.
48. The stage 2 response was almost identical to the stage 1 response, with only minor additions. The Code says that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must act independently, and the stage 2 response does not evidence this was the case or that it provided an appropriate response, tailored to the resident’s concerns.
49. The failures identified in this aspect of the investigation amount to maladministration.

Learning

50. In its complaint investigation, the landlord identified improvements it would make in relation to its approach in identifying D&M and in arranging appointments with its residents.
51. Since this complaint the landlord has implemented new D&M and responsive repair policies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. The landlord has not provided comprehensive repair records, and this has impacted our investigation. For example, some records are missing or do not provide sufficient details, and the landlord appears to have relied on those of its contractor throughout its complaint investigation.
53. It is essential that landlords keep accurate and clear records so that it can monitor issues effectively. The lack of independent records in this case may have made it more difficult for the landlord to identify or monitor the efficiency of any completed work and establish a root cause. This will have contributed to delays in fully resolving the issue for the resident.
54. It is, therefore, recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, with consideration of our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

55. The communication with the resident could have been improved. The resident has told us that there have been occasions when contractors have attended without notice or missed appointments without appropriate communication. These issues have been addressed within this investigation.