London Borough of Ealing (202438638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438638

London Borough of Ealing

27 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks into the property.
2. Damp, mould and condensation in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property under a secured tenancy agreement, and they have done so since 2013. The property is a four-bedroom home, and the landlord is a local authority. The resident has a family member who acts on their behalf as a representative for housing issues.
On 8 February 2021 the resident’s representative reported water ingress into a bathroom. Between 2021 and 2024 the resident reported this leak as a repeated issue. The resident’s representative said the leaks caused damage to the property and led to mould growth.
On 8 December 2024 the resident’s representative complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident’s representative said:
1. They were deeply frustrated and disappointed with the landlord for how it had handled the ongoing leak. They said the issues occurred during a time when a member of the household was living with cancer.
2. The leaks had caused extensive damage to the property.
3. It had taken the landlord a significant time to address the leaks, and when it completed repairs the issues soon returned.
4. They wanted the landlord to take comprehensive action to address the issues and to explain how it planned to conduct the repairs.
In its stage one response dated 20 December 2024 the landlord said:
1. It did not hold full records dating back to 2021.
2. It had raised works to conduct repairs to the roof and a downpipe. Poor weather had impacted its ability to conduct the repairs, but it was hoping to get the works back on schedule in the new year.
3. Once the roof repairs had been completed it would arrange for its damp and mould team to conduct an inspection.
On 20 December 2024 the resident’s representative escalated their complaint as they felt the works had been ongoing for too long.
In its stage 2 response dated 29 January 2025 the landlord said:
1. On 31 October 2024 it had raised a work order to repair a damaged downpipe which was causing water ingress into the bathroom.
2. It had organised for a damp and mould inspection to occur, and an operative would contact the resident’s representative directly to arrange this.
3. It apologised for the time it had taken to carry out the repairs. It said it was working with contractors to improve the timeliness of its services.
On 1 April 2025 the resident’s representative told us they had brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as the roof issues had not been resolved, and they wanted to live in a home which was safe and habitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Records indicate the leaks into the bathroom, and the subsequent damp, mould and condensation issues began in 2021. This has been noted for context. The Ombudsman does not usually consider matters which are not brought to a landlord’s attention via a formal complaint within a reasonable period, this is normally considered to be 12 months. Therefore, in this instance the Ombudsman has decided to assess actions the landlord conducted within the 12 months prior to the complaint, and actions taken as a result of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of leaks into the property

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours, and to respond to routine repairs within 28 days. For some repairs pre-work inspections will be required. To ensure quality the landlord will arrange for post-work inspections to be conducted.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it becomes aware a repair is required.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and the exterior of the property in good repair. The tenancy agreement also outlines that the landlord is responsible for completing repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s records show that since 2021 the resident’s representative has reported leaks into the bathroom six times. On two occasions the landlord raised works to trace the source of the leak, and the resident’s representative frequently chased the landlord for updates.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord raised works for contractors to try and identify the source of the leaks. Records show this job was closed after a contractor failed to attend the property on 6 August 2023. It was inappropriate that the job was closed as the repair had not been completed, and the issues appeared to be linked to the landlord’s contractors and not the resident.
On 13 October 2023 the landlord re-raised works to identify the source of the leak after the resident’s representative chased for an update. Considering the leaks had been ongoing since 2021 and works had previously been cancelled, the landlord should have prioritised the repair. However, records note the work occurred 197 days later on 26 April 2024. This response time was inappropriate, particularly so when considering the landlord’s repair responsibility under the tenancy agreement.
On 27 November 2023 a survey of the property occurred. The surveyor noted there were watermarks on walls in the property from previous leaks and water was pooling on the property’s flat roof. The surveyor recommended that the landlord should erect scaffolding and conduct a full inspection of the roof. The landlord has not provided evidence to this Service to suggest such an inspection occurred. Taking into consideration the history of leaks into the property, the failings in the previous responses to requests for repair, and the surveyor’s overall findings, the landlord should have ensured that this inspection was completed. This was a failing.
In October 2024 the resident’s representative reported tiles had fallen from the roof and water from a downpipe was leaking into the bathroom. This would have exacerbated the issues with water ingress into the property. After it learned of these issues the landlord raised the following works:
1. On 16 October 2024 the landlord allocated a 3-day response target for the roof tile works. It arranged for an appointment to occur on 31 October 2024, the resident’s representative said they were unaware of this appointment. Contractors attended on 29 November 2024 but were unable to access the property. Contractors attended on 22 January 2025 and took photographs of the area. The next occasion when contractors attended was on 15 August 2025. The timing of the latest attendance appears to be prompted by this Service’s intervention.
2. On 31 October 2024 it arranged for repairs to the downpipe to be completed on 28 November 2024. This appointment was later changed to 29 December 2024 due to contractor availability.
The Ombudsman has determined the landlord’s response times for the repairs for the October 2024 reports was unreasonable when considering its policy and tenancy agreement. Additionally, the landlord has not supplied details of any post work inspections which were conducted following the roof and downpipe repairs. This was inappropriate, considering the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy.
In its stage one response the landlord said poor weather conditions had affected the repairs. While this could have led to delays, the landlord has not provided evidence to suggest it communicated this to the resident’s representative. Additionally, the landlord has not supplied evidence to suggest that it tried to mitigate the distress the resident experienced by considering a temporary fix. This was unreasonable.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not tell the resident’s representative what its planned timescales were for completing the repairs, nor did it explain how it planned to deal with the ongoing leaks. This was inappropriate considering the content of the complaint. To address this the Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord conduct a full inspection of the exterior of the property to identify the potential causes of the leaks. Following this the landlord is to produce a schedule of planned repairs, and share this with the resident’s representative.
In its stage two response the landlord apologised for the time it had taken to carry out the repairs, and it said it was working on improving its services. This was appropriate. However, considering the extent of the landlord’s failings it should have also taken additional steps to address the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration occurred after considering:
1. During the period the Ombudsman has assessed the landlord repeatedly failed to adequately address leaks into the property.
2. The landlord did not conduct repairs in line with its repairs policy and its tenancy agreement.
3. The landlord did not act on the surveyor’s recommendations, and it would have been appropriate to do so given the history of leaks, the failings in the previous responses to requests for repair, and the surveyor’s overall findings.
4. There was a significant delay in the landlord in addressing the missing roof tile.
5. The landlord did not offer the resident redress, such as an offer of compensation, which adequately reflected the distress they experienced.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings outlined.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould and condensation in the property

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it is committed to managing cases of damp and mould. When a resident reports damp and mould concerns it will triage the report and this will inform the priority of the works.
The policy says it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure its properties are safe and free from hazards including damp and mould. It is also responsible for keeping the structure of its properties in good repair. Residents are responsible for taking reasonable steps to prevent damp and mould growth.
The Housing Act 2004 places a requirement for landlords to assess hazards and risks within their rented homes. Hazards are to be assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which includes damp and mould growth as being potential hazards which may require remedy.
On 27 November 2023 a surveyor inspected the property. The surveyor noted that there were heating and ventilation issues in the property caused by the bathroom extractor fan not working, and there being gaps in the sealant around windows. The surveyor identified mould in the following locations:
1. The fourth bedroom.
2. The upstairs landing.
3. The bathroom.
4. The stairwell.
5. The entrance hallway.
6. The living room.
7. The kitchen.
During this inspection the household was given advice around how to prevent moisture build up in the property. The surveyor also recommended for the landlord to conduct mould washes, replace the bathroom extractor fan, conduct roof repairs and to re–seal windows.
Following the inspection the landlord did not complete all the works the surveyor had recommended, and it did not conduct or further investigations around structural concerns the surveyor had highlighted. This was inappropriate.
After the inspection the landlord raised works to conduct a mould wash on 30 November 2023, this occurred on 29 December 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe considering it occurred over the Christmas period. However, the resident’s representative has said the mould wash did not address all the mould growth in the property.
The landlord did not raise works to replace the extractor fan after the 27 November 2023 inspection, despite this being recommended by the surveyor. This was unreasonable. On 8 January 2024 the resident’s representative asked the landlord to replace the broken extractor fan, and it completed this work 227 days later on 21 August 2024. This was an unreasonable response time.
The landlord has told this Service that it has not conducted repairs to windows in the property. This is unreasonable considering the findings of the 27 November 2023 survey. An order has been made for an inspection to occur to address this, by carrying out an assessment of the current condition of the windows.
In their complaint the resident’s representative informed the landlord that members of the household had COPD and asthma. Upon learning of this the landlord should have reconsidered the needs of the household to determine if it should conduct any high priority works linked to the reported damp and mould.
In its stage one response the landlord said it would arrange for contractors to assess the damp and mould once the roof repairs had been completed. This stance was unreasonable as it would have led to additional delays. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the affected areas before coming to this conclusion. This would have allowed it to consider putting in place any temporary or permanent measures to improve the condition of the home – for example the use of a dehumidifier or any minor repairs needed, such as to the bathroom extractor fan.
At stage 2 the landlord said it would arrange for an inspection to occur, this was reasonable. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service to suggest an inspection occurred following its stage 2 response. Instead, the landlord told us on 15 August 2025 it had asked a damp and mould contractor to inspect the property, and it anticipated this would occur in September 2025. This response time was unreasonable, and the timing of this appears to be linked to this Service’s intervention. The landlord’s inability to follow through promptly on its stage 2 commitments is a significant failing.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for how long it had taken to address the repairs. It did not offer the resident any financial redress for its handling of the reported damp, mould and condensation. This was inappropriate considering the extent of the failings identified by the Ombudsman and resulting impact on the resident.
In the complaint the resident’s representative also asked the landlord to produce a comprehensive plan on how it would address the issues in the property. This was a reasonable request, and we understand why the representative asked for this information and assurance. The landlord did not address this request at stage one or stage 2, this was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord failed to adequately monitor and address the reported damp, mould and condensation.
2. There was a significant delay in the landlord arranging a damp and mould inspection after it had committed to do so at stage 2.
3. The landlord failed to act on survey recommendations.
4. There is no evidence that the landlord appropriately considered the medical needs of members of the household.
5. The landlord did not adequately communicate with the resident about the damp, mould and condensation.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings outlined. The presence of damp and mould in the property, coupled with the landlord’s delayed response, would have caused significant distress and concern taking into account the distress associated with members of the resident’s household having respiratory health conditions.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident’s representative complained to the landlord on 8 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged this complaint 6 working days later, and it provided its stage one response 5 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord provided its stage one response within a reasonable timeframe, even though it was one day late in acknowledging the complaint.
The resident’s representative escalated their complaint on 20 December 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this 22 working days later on 17 January 2025. This response time was outside of the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord did then provide its stage 2 response in a timely manner on 29 January 2025.
There is no evidence to suggest the resident experienced detriment from the landlord’s delay in the escalation acknowledgement. Considering both its complaint responses were provided in a timely manner, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s delays equated to a service failure. As such a determination has been made that no maladministration occurred in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of leaks in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp, mould and condensation in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1,700 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £700 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property.
2. £1000 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
Within 6 weeks of the determination date the landlord is to conduct:
1. An inspection to the roof and external areas of the property with the aim of identifying the source of the leaks into the property.
2. A damp and mould inspection in the property.
3. An inspection to the windows to assess if any resealing works are required.
4. An inspection to the property to identify any internal damage caused by the leaks and the damp and mould.
Within 8 weeks of the determination date the landlord is to provide the resident with a schedule of works. This is to include works to address the leaks, damp and mould, and to address any associated damage.
Within 8 weeks of the determination date the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this report.
Within 12 weeks of the determination date the landlord is ordered to identify any learning from this investigation. It should then produce a report to tell us what it has learned; the steps it has taken to improve its service and its approach to leaks, damp and mould reports.
The landlord should provide a copy of this report to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks. The report should outline:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the Ombudsman’s orders outlined in paragraphs 48 to 52 within 8 weeks of the determination date. For the Ombudsman’s order outlined in paragraph 53 the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance within 12 weeks of the determination date.