Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202436341)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436341

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

11 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. a leak and subsequent damp and mould in his bedroom.
2. a lack of cleaning and rats in the communal areas.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in December 2012. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3- bedroom maisonette. The resident lives with his wife and children. The landlord said it did not have any relevant vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 8 December 2023 the resident reported a leak in a bedroom of the property from the roof. The landlord inspected the roof in January 2024. The resident told the landlord on 1 March 2024 that the leak was causing damp and mould.
The landlord instructed pest control experts to put rodent baits around the outdoor communal bin storage on 9 April 2024.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2024 and gave the landlord further details about his complaint on 17 May 2024. He said:
1. the leak, damp, and mould on the bedroom ceiling were getting worse. He was worried they may cause health issues.
2. the cleaning of communal areas was poor and not often enough.
3. poor cleaning and poor communal bin storage was causing rats, which he said made holes in the building.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 29 May 2024. It said:
1. it had raised works for a damp and mould inspection of the bedroom and would discuss the next steps once it received the report.
2. it had raised pest works on 24 May 2024 and would update the resident within 10 working days.
3. it apologised for its lack of communication, oversight of its contractors, and failure to follow up on actions. It offered £50 compensation.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2024. He said:
1. the landlord had communicated poorly about the leak, damp and mould in the bedroom ceiling and had not completed the repairs. He said it cleaned the mould in June 2024 but there was still a hole in the ceiling.
2. contractors had missed multiple appointments, causing him to miss work.
3. proper cleaning of the communal areas was not completed every fortnight.
4. the issues were causing him stress, and he was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord offered.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 23 September 2024. It said:
1. it inspected and completed works to the bedroom ceiling damp and mould on 12 June 2024. It apologised for not discussing the report with him.
2. it had not repaired the hole after the inspection due to poor communication. It apologised for this and said it had raised works to repair and redecorate.
3. how frequently cleaning should take place and attached a schedule. It said it had told cleaners to take photos after cleaning and would monitor this.
4. many cleaning issues were due to people not using the allocated bins. It said ensuring correct waste disposal was everyone’s responsibility.
5. he could raise concerns with the neighbourhood officer who did monthly inspections.
6. it offered £150 compensation including the £50 offered at stage 1.
In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord had not completed repairs to his bedroom ceiling, and a leak, damp and mould remained. He said he was concerned about his and his family’s health. He also said that the standard of cleaning had not improved. He wanted the repairs to be completed, improved cleaning and increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised issues which the landlord responded to in its stage 1 response including a fire alarm and a leak affecting the communal staircase. However, these issues did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord also investigated the resident’s reports of birds affecting his use of the balcony in its internal complaints procedure. However, the resident has since confirmed he considers this issue to be resolved. Our investigation has therefore focussed on the outstanding issues that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Leak and subsequent damp and mould in the bedroom

The landlord’s repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement said that it was the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes the roof, pipes, drains, gutters, outside and inside walls, ceilings and plaster works (excluding minor cracks).
The resident’s tenancy agreement said the landlord would carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s repairs policy said it aimed to minimise the time between a repair request and completion.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy said its objectives were to:
1. act within 48 hours once notified of damp and mould.
2. undertake effective investigation.
3. implement all reasonable repairs and improvements to eliminate damp.
4. protect properties from deterioration and damage from damp and mould.
Our Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights that if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services.
Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the need for landlords to ensure effective record keeping.
The resident reported signs of a leak in the bedroom from the roof on 8 December 2023. When a leak is reported, it is reasonable for landlords to assess the severity of the leak, and the priority of any repairs. The landlord raised a job to trace and remedy the leak and noted that a pre-scaffold inspection was required. However, it did not assess the severity of the leak, or how to prioritise the works, which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord assessed how to access the roof on 19 January 2024 and on 26 January 2024, identified that it needed a ladder. It arranged an inspection for 2 February 2024. Its evidence suggests that around February 2024, a contractor inspected the roof and found:
1. the box gutter was causing damp below and required repairs.
2. water was pooling on the roof and proposed works to resolve this.
The landlord’s repairs records are unclear and often undated. This has impacted our ability to assess the timeliness of its actions. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the roof and identify the required repairs. Although it inspected the roof, the landlord took no action to repair the roof leak in the 2 months after it was reported. This was unreasonable and was not in line with its repairs policy.
On 1 March 2024 the resident called the landlord and said there was still water leaking into his flat. He said it was causing damp and mould. The landlord raised works to repair the leak into the property on 27 March 2024. However, it cancelled these works and took no further action to inspect or mitigate the leak, damp and mould at this time. This was not in line with its repairs or damp and mould policy.
On 3 May 2024 the resident requested an update. He said contractors had recently missed an appointment and did not reschedule. It is unclear how the landlord prioritised works, which is unreasonable. It instructed a healthy homes report to be carried out at the property on 13 May 2024, but this did not address the roof leak or the damp and mould in the bedroom. This was unreasonable and not in line with its damp and mould policy.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it confirmed it had raised a request for a damp and mould inspection in the bedroom and would contact him once it had received the report. The landlord referred to a leak from the roof into the communal staircase in its stage 1 response but did not address the outstanding leak in the bedroom, which had not been repaired. This was unreasonable.
The landlord completed a wash and treatment of the damp and mould on the bedroom ceiling on 12 June 2024, which was a reasonable step to mitigate the damp and mould. However, it unreasonably delayed in taking this action. It also failed to investigate or address the cause of the damp and mould in the bedroom. It did not discuss the damp and mould report with the resident as agreed in its stage 1 response, which was unreasonable. The evidence suggests a lack of communication with, and oversight of its contractors contributed to these failures of service.
On 5 July 2024 the resident asked for an update on the leak, and said he was having to use tape to seal the bedroom ceiling. The landlord took no action for 2 weeks, which was unreasonable. On 19 July 2024 it asked a contractor to attend due to holes in the bedroom ceiling. No visit took place, which was not in line with the landlord’s repairs or damp and mould policy. On 9 August 2024 the resident said he was unhappy with the communication between the landlord and its contractors. On 10 August 2024 the landlord raised works to repair a roof leak, which was reasonable. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not assess the severity of the leak, or how to prioritise the works.
Around 11 September 2024 a contractor told the landlord it would need to remove solar panels to repair the leak into the resident’s property. The landlord did not agree to these works. It said it believed the leak could be resolved by correcting the slope of the roof and ensuring proper drainage. It said it would seek a second opinion on the works required. However, it did not take any further action to repair the leak at this stage, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the unreasonable delays and for its lack of communication with its contractors and the resident. It was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle of put things right for the landlord to agree to arrange an appointment to repair and redecorate the hole in the bedroom ceiling. However, it did not complete these works. Nor did it address the leak in its stage 2 response or complete any works to resolve the leak until 19 March 2025. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns that contractors had missed appointments in its stage 2 response.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

On 15 October 2024 the landlord raised works to investigate the roof bowing and drainage issues causing water to pool on the roof but did not complete the works. On 16 October 2024, contractors attended to redecorate the bedroom ceiling but were unable to do so as there was water coming in from the roof. When the resident reported this to the landlord, it did not take steps to repair the leak, which was unreasonable, and a failure to put things right. On 19 March 2025, the landlord completed works to resolve the leak. The details of the works it completed are unclear from its records.

Conclusion

The resident said he spent a significant amount of time contacting the landlord to chase the repairs. He said he was very distressed due to the landlord’s inaction and was worried about the potential impact of the damp and mould on his family’s health. He said his wife could no longer sleep in the bedroom as the leak, damp and mould were above the headboard. He said his energy bills increased in his attempts to dry the damp.
In summary, the landlord did not:
1. maintain or provide clear repairs records.
2. repair the leak into the bedroom ceiling in a reasonable period of time.
3. inspect the damp and mould in the bedroom in a reasonable period of time.
4. have proper oversight of, or communication with its contractors.
5. acknowledge that the leak was ongoing or assess if it was causing the damp and mould.
6. respond to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments.
7. complete the actions promised in its complaint responses.
The landlord attempted to put things right in its internal complaints procedure by offering some redress, although it is unclear what proportion of the £150 compensation was for the leak, damp and mould in the bedroom. Given that it did not repair the leak for more than a year, the compensation it offered was not proportionate to its failings. It also failed to show any learning. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould in his bedroom.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord may deduct the compensation offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation if it has already paid this.
The resident said his bedroom ceiling was still wet, and we have therefore ordered the landlord to respond to this. The landlord said it has booked works to repair and redecorate the bedroom ceiling on 14 and 15 August 2025. As the landlord has not yet completed these works, we have ordered it to do so. We have also ordered it to set out its learning from the failures identified in this report.

Communal cleaning and rats in the communal areas

The landlord’s repairs policy:
1. said the landlord was responsible for pests including rats in the resident’s property and the building.
2. said residents were responsible for cleaning communal areas (unless part of a service charge), rubbish clearance, cleaning basements and front areas.
3. and the resident’s tenancy agreement said it was the landlord’s responsibility to keep common areas in repair and fit for use.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says residents in maisonettes accept a share of the responsibility for cleaning communal areas.
The landlord’s records do not confirm when it first received reports of pest issues in the communal areas or bin storage. This has impacted our ability to assess whether its response was timely and reasonable. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to instruct pest control experts. Contractors set rodent baiting around the outdoor communal bin storage on 9 April 2024. They said there was rubbish on the floor and the bins were open permanently, causing an easy food source for rodents. They said there were live pests and removed 2 dead rats. The landlord did not assess whether it could take any steps to encourage improved bin hygiene, which was unreasonable given the findings of the pest inspection.
The resident raised the landlord’s handling of communal cleaning and rats in the communal areas in his stage 1 complaint. In relation to the pest control issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate its response to reports of pests and confirm any planned actions. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not assess its response to previous reports of rodents, which was unreasonable. However, it was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle of put things right for the landlord to confirm it had raised pest works and agree to update the resident within 10 working days.
The landlord instructed pest experts who set rodent baiting and completed follow up visits to monitor rodent activity on 28 May, 10 June and 25 June 2024. This was an appropriate response to the concerns the resident raised in his complaint. The contractors assessed whether the air brick was damaged, allowing rodents to enter the building, and found it was not. However, the landlord did not update the resident as agreed, which was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle of put things right.
In relation to cleaning standards, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm whether it was dealing with the resident’s concerns as a complaint or service request. In responding to the issues in its complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out the service standards agreed with its cleaners and assess its monitoring of this. In its stage 1 response, it did not address the resident’s concerns about cleaning standards, which was unreasonable. It has not provided sufficient evidence for us to be able to assess whether cleaning was to the agreed standards which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
On 25 June 2024 pest control contractors reported hygiene issues and said people from neighbouring areas were constantly dumping rubbish on the kerbside, attracting rodents. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether any action could be taken to prevent hygiene issues around the communal bin storage and communicate this to residents.
When the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, he said he was concerned about the frequency and standard of cleaning. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to provide evidence of the service standards agreed with its cleaners and attach a copy of this to its complaint response. However, it did not show that it had a system it had in place to monitor the cleaners’ attendance or standard of cleaning, which was unreasonable given the resident’s concerns and previous reports of pests in the communal areas.
The landlord confirmed it had told cleaners to take photos after cleaning and said it would monitor this. This was appropriate and in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of put things right and learn from outcomes. However, it perhaps would have been helpful for the landlord to also agree to provide accessible information about the cleaning, such as a signed rota on a communal notice board.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that keeping the communal areas clean was everyone’s responsibility in its stage 2 response. However, given that it was aware there were hygiene issues in the communal bin storage area, it would have been reasonable for it to consider solutions to this. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the neighbourhood officer’s monthly block inspections and encourage him to raise concerns with them. However, it did not provide details of how to contact the neighbourhood officer, and when their inspections took place.
In summary, the landlord did not:
1. maintain or provide records of residents’ reports of pest control issues.
2. consider measures to prevent hygiene issues around the communal bin storage and communicate these to residents.
3. monitor or evidence the standard of cleaning.
4. investigate the standard of cleaning in its internal complaints procedure.
The resident said the communal areas were unclean, there were dead rats in the communal bin storage, and he worried they would enter the building. The landlord took some steps to put things right and showed some learning. Although it is unclear what proportion of the £150 compensation was for its response to reports of a lack of cleaning and rats in the communal areas, it offered some redress. However, the landlord did not identify or apologise for all its failures.
We have therefore found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of cleaning and rats in the communal areas. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It may deduct the compensation offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation if it has already paid this.
The landlord recently told us it had challenges in cleaning as there was previously no external water source to the block. It said it was going to install an outdoor tap in the bin area. It is positive that the landlord has identified this as a potential solution to hygiene issues in the bin area, although it did not communicate this to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident and confirm any steps it has taken or will take to improve the hygiene of the bin storage area.
The resident said he did not have the contact details for the neighbourhood officer or know when estate inspections took place. We have therefore ordered the landlord to provide this information. We have also ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns that cleaning was not taking place to the agreed service standards, with reference to any measures it had in place to monitor this.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy was in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and said it would:
1. acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days.
2. issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of logging them.
3. acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
4. issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of acknowledgement and inform residents and explain why, if it extended this timescale.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 May 2024, 6 working days after she raised a complaint. This was 1 day outside its complaints policy timescales. It was positive that the landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint and put this in writing on 17 May 2024 to ensure it understood what his complaint was about. The landlord issued a stage 1 response 10 working days after it acknowledged the complaint, which was in line with its complaints policy timescales.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on 16 August 2024, 5 working days after the resident requested to escalate it. This was in line with its complaints policy timescales. It is positive that it clearly laid out its understanding of the stage 2 complaint. It issued a stage 2 complaint response 26 working days after its acknowledgement, which was outside its complaints policy timescales. The landlord did not inform the resident it was going to be late or explain why, which was not in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord did not acknowledge, apologise for, or offer redress for the delay in its complaint response. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould in his bedroom.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a lack of cleaning and rats in the communal areas.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. write to the resident and:
  1. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
  2. respond to his concerns that the bedroom ceiling was still wet.
  3. respond to his concerns that cleaning was not taking place to the agreed service standards, with reference to any measures it had in place to monitor this.
  4. confirm any steps it has taken or will take to improve the hygiene of the bin storage area.
  5. send him details of when estate inspections take place and contact details for the neighbourhood officer, or details of how he can access this information.
3. repair and redecorate the hole, and any damp and mould in the bedroom ceiling.
4. pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation, made up of:
  1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould in his bedroom.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of cleaning and rats in the communal areas.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  4. the landlord may deduct the £150 it previously offered in its complaint responses if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
5. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.