London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202329899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329899

Tower Hamlets Homes

29 April 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:
1. reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs
2. request to repair her interior doors
3. associated complaint

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a Local Authority. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor with her partner and children.
In December 2022 the resident reported that a wall in her bedroom was damp and that some of her interior doors did not close correctly. On 15 March 2023 she raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the lack of action in dealing with both repair issues.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said that an inspection had been raised to survey the resident’s property. That earlier follow-on work had not been requested and to resolve the complaint it would monitor any further outstanding repairs. The landlord also offered £100 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the time and trouble the resident had taken to pursue the matter.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 April 2023, and on 26 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. following an inspection on 13 April 2023, work was raised to treat the damp and mould at the resident’s property
2. some of this work was still outstanding and it would continue to monitor and update the resident with its progress
3. it would not install an extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom as there was no scope to do this – instead mould treatment would help address the issue
4. internal doors were the responsibility of the resident, and no further action would be taken in relation to this
5. if the resident believed damage to the condition of her home was caused by the landlord’s negligence, she could claim via its liability insurance
The landlord recorded that all work was completed for the resident between May and December 2023. It confirmed on 28 March 2024 that it had closed the resident’s complaint.
The resident referred her case to us on 25 November 2023. She has recently told us that she is still experiencing damp and mould and still has a leak above her front door. The resident has said that her son was referred for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to his ceiling collapsing in 2021, and that the landlord has failed to consider this condition when dealing with the more recent reports. She has asked that the landlord acknowledge its failings and take responsibility for the damage done to her home, and the impact it had on the household.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

It is noted that the resident made reports of damp and mould as part of a disrepair claim in 2021. The landlord conducted some repair work and moved the resident to temporary accommodation. Part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord was about its actions during this period. However, this investigation has focussed on the actions of the landlord from December 2022 that were considered following the resident’s formal complaint in March 2023.
This is because the landlord’s actions in 2021 occurred more than 6 months prior to the resident’s complaint. In the interest of fairness, a resident is expected to raise a complaint with a landlord promptly. This is to ensure the landlord can investigate the matter while the issue is still ‘live’.
Usually, we would consider the landlord’s actions up to its stage 2 complaint response. However, in this case it is fair to consider the landlords actions after the stage 2 complaint was issued. This is because the issues faced by the resident were ongoing and the complaint was not closed until March 2024.
The resident has also told us about the PTSD suffered by her son and the impact to the household’s health. While the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, we cannot determine liability for damages, including whether a landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or by way of a personal injury insurance claim. However, any distress or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s level of service will be considered below

Damp and mould, and the associated repairs

The landlord’s repair policy says that it will target to complete routine repairs within 20 working days of receiving a report. Routine repairs are defined as those which may cause inconvenience but are not urgent in nature, or do not pose an immediate health and safety risk. The policy gives examples such as minor leaks or repairs to outside walls.
The repairs policy also says that certain works may be more complex and take longer to complete. Factors such as erecting scaffolding can add unavoidable delay, but resident’s will be informed if this is the case.
The resident first reported that the wall in a bedroom was wet on 13 December 2022. The landlord attended on 4 January 2023 and noted that the issue was with exterior brickwork. It recorded that follow-on work was needed to identify and fix the issue.
While the landlord did complete the first appointment within its 20-working day timescale, it did not conduct the follow-on work. The landlord did not take any action until the resident raised a formal complaint on 15 March 2023, 3 months after the first report. This was unreasonable and did not align with its repairs policy timescales or its commitment to minimise inconvenience for the resident. The resident took time and trouble to chase this with the landlord and in her complaint highlighted her son’s wellbeing was affected due to his PTSD.
As part of her formal complaint the resident told the landlord about the exterior brickwork and that there was a leak above her front door. On 8 April 2023, the resident also told the landlord that an extractor fan was supposed to have been fitted in her water closet (WC) to help prevent mould growth, but that this had not been done. The landlord arranged for further inspections of all outstanding issues to be completed on 13 April 2023. The inspection was raised within the 20-working day timescale set out in its repairs policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a new inspection, given the length of time that had passed since the first inspection in December 2022.
Following the new inspections, works were recommended to:
1. complete a 3-stage mould treatment to the WC ceiling
2. overhaul the bathroom window
3. fit UPVC window liners around the bedroom and living room windows
4. check for a roof leak affecting the boxing above the resident’s front door
5. erect scaffolding to further inspect the external brickwork
The mould treatment was completed on 28 April 2023. It also carried out a check relating to the roof leak above the front door on 10 May 2023. The landlord took these actions within the 20-working day timescale following the inspection which aligns with its repairs policy. However, it did not make progress on any of the other recommendations. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience, especially as the landlord did not keep her informed about any delays.
On 26 May 2023, the contractor attended and conducted its own inspection. This inspection again found issues with a leak above the front door, damp in the WC, and that work was needed to windows in the bedroom and living room. It was noted that scaffolding must be erected to complete the work and to gain access to the roof for to inspect for any potential leak. While the resident found this frustrating, it was a necessary step for the work to be completed. The contractor was required to conduct its own survey of the work needed to confirm the materials needed.
On the same day as the inspection, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed that it would monitor the outstanding work and keep the resident updated on the progress. It also told the resident that it would not install an extractor fan in the WC as the window was too small.
We published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021. This report says damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in finding potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. However, the landlord’s actions did not algin with this approach.
At the time of the stage 2 complaint, it had been 5 months since the resident’s first report of damp and the landlord had failed to find the root cause of the issue. It had yet to conduct a thorough investigation of the external brickwork or the roof. In addition, the landlord offered no solution to the issue of damp and mould in the resident’s WC. It was content with offering a mould treatment, without any permanent solution. While it may have been reasonable to refuse an extractor fan, the landlord did not show that it considered any alternative before issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
The time taken to this point was significant as the resident had told the landlord that the damp and mould may have been affecting her child’s health. She had stressed the importance of completing work quickly to limit any impact. While the landlord was working toward a resolution, it showed a lack of urgency in completing recommended actions. This caused the resident some significant distress and inconvenience.
Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord arranged for an operative to put mastic around the resident’s windows, and to rake out and repoint some brickwork. This appointment was arranged for 14 June 2023. However, the resident was not told about this appointment which caused her some inconvenience. The work was completed following a rearranged appointment on 30 June 2023.
The landlord also arranged for the contractor to fit UPVC liner around some windows on 27 June 2023. However, the landlord did not tell the resident about this appointment until the day before it was due to be completed. This meant that the job had to be rearranged for 22 July 2023. The failure to tell the resident about appointments in advance did not align with the landlord’s repairs policy to minimise inconvenience to the resident.
On 25 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to ask why the contractor did not complete all the work scheduled during the appointment on 22 July 2023. She explained that there were still jobs outstanding related to the windows, damp above the front door, the external brickwork and the WC. The landlord replied on 3 August 2023 after speaking with its contractor. It said that the internal work could not be completed until the external work was done. It explained that the external work could not be completed without scaffolding and so it had arranged for this to be erected.
This was unreasonable, the landlord was aware that the work required scaffolding as early as 11 April 2023 when an operative noted that scaffolding was needed. For the landlord to have failed to arrange this for 3 months was unreasonable and continued to cause the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
Scaffolding was erected between 3 and 7 August 2023. The landlord then attended on:
1. 22 August 2023 – to complete a check on the external brickwork and apply sealant
2. 30 August 2023 – to fit new window liners
3. 1 and 4 September 2023 – to complete work to fix the roof leak by resealing the gutter
4. 11 October 2023 – to complete work on the windows
5. 21 November 2023 – to paint the ceiling in the WC and seal lining in the lounge window
During this period there is limited evidence that the resident was kept updated on the work carried out by the landlord. The evidence shows that it was the resident that had to tell the landlord what work was left outstanding, rather than the landlord effectively managing the repairs. This put added pressure on the resident and increased the distress and inconvenience she already felt.
On 11 December 2023, the landlord raised a job to supply and install a wall fan heater to the WC to try and resolve the damp and mould issue in this room. This work was completed on 16 December 2023. While it was positive that the landlord found a potential solution to the WC issue, the time taken to offer this (8 months after the report), was unreasonable. This was further evidence that the landlord was not taking a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould as suggested in the spotlight report. The landlord told the resident on 13 March 2024 that the complaint case had been closed, as no further reports had been made, or action was due.
In summary, the landlord did not act in line with its own policy timescales. It did not take accountability for the repairs after they were reported in December 2022. It took 12 months for the landlord to fully complete the work for the resident, and during this time there was a lack of effective communication. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions amounted to maladministration.
While the landlord did offer £100 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response, it did not make any offer of compensation in its stage 2 complaint response. Nor did it confirm if the £100 was still available for the resident to accept. Therefore, as it is not clear if the landlord’s offer of compensation was open to the resident at stage 2, it has not been considered in the remedy calculations below.
Where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on the resident, our remedies guidance suggests a remedy of between £600 to £1,000 is appropriate. The resident suffered considerable distress and inconvenience that lasted over a prolonged period. This impact was heightened because of her child’s health condition and the lack of urgency she felt the landlord had in dealing with the issue. The resident also spent a lot of time chasing the landlord, and explaining what repairs were outstanding. Therefore, a payment of £800 is a fair figure to recognise the overall impact to the resident because of the landlord’s maladministration.

Interior doors

The resident first reported that her interior doors did not close properly on 13 December 2022. The landlord called the resident and arranged an appointment for 11 January 2023. However, this appointment was cancelled on 28 December 2022, as the landlord did not consider itself responsible for the interior doors.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident considers that the landlord should be responsible for the interior doors because it was the landlord who installed the doors incorrectly. On review of the evidence available, we cannot substantiate this view.
The landlord’s repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy say that the resident is responsible for her interior doors. Therefore, the decision by the landlord not to conduct a repair to fix the issues with the interior doors was fair.
However, the landlord did not tell the resident that the repair had been cancelled. This meant that the resident waited in for the operative which caused her some distress and inconvenience. The resident was not told about the reason for the cancellation until after she raised a complaint which meant she spent unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord about a matter that was not its responsibility. Taking all the circumstances into account, this amounts to service failure.
Where there has been a failure by the landlord that did not have a significant impact on the overall outcome for the resident, our remedies guidance suggests a payment of between £50 and £100 is fair. As the landlord is not responsible for repairing interior doors, it is the landlord’s poor communication that caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. As this lasted a short duration, a payment of £50 is fair to recognise this impact.
In addition to this, the landlord’s own repairs policy says that if an appointment is missed by its contractor, then it would compensate a resident in the form of a voucher worth £10. Therefore, as the landlord did not notify the resident of the cancellation of this appointment it is fair that the landlord pays a further £10 compensation as per its own policy. This brings the total compensation for this complaint to £60.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 48 hours. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. An extension of time may be needed of 10 working days. The resident would be told about any extension.
The landlord’s actions at stage 1 of its complaint process were reasonable. It acknowledged and responded to the resident’s formal complaint within its timescales. It also recognised there had been failings and offered an apology and remedy.
The landlord’s actions at stage 2 of its complaint process were unreasonable. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 April 2023, but the landlord did not provide a stage 2 complaint response for 32 working days. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
The Complaint Handling Code at the time said that the stage 2 response must include a decision on the complaint. However, the landlord’s response did not say whether the resident’s complaint had been upheld and the reasons for this decision. This further inconvenienced the resident as she was unaware of whether the landlord had accepted there had been some failings. Based on all the circumstances the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions amounted to maladministration.
Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which had an impact on a resident, but the impact was not permanent a payment of between £100 to £600 would be fair. In this instance, the impact of the landlord’s failings was short lived as the resident did receive a stage 2 complaint response and was able to refer her complaint to the Service without delay. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident £100 to recognise the impact of the failings above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs
2. the associated complaint
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the request to repair the resident’s interior doors.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. write an apology to the resident and provide a copy to the Service
2. pay compensation of £960 (this is in addition to any compensation the landlord may already have paid the resident), broken down as:
  1. £800 for its handling of the damp and mould, and associated repairs.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling
  3. £60 for its handling of the request to repair the interior doors
3. contact the resident to arrange for a suitably qualified person to complete a damp and mould inspection
4. provide a copy of the damp and mould inspection to the resident and the Service
Within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. contact the resident and arrange appointments for any recommendations made in the inspection report
2. provide evidence to the Service of the appointments arranged
3. provide the resident with an action plan and provide a copy to us. This should include:
  1. a point of contact for the repairs/recommendations
  2. a contact plan which says when and how often it will update the resident on the repairs/recommendations
  3. an estimate of how long it expects the work to take