From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Croydon (202402696)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402696

London Borough of Croydon

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request to move.
    2. Reports of mould.
    3. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a sole secure tenant of the landlord since 2011. He lives in the studio flat with his partner and young child, who has asthma. He divided the flat so there is a separate bedroom and living room.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in a distressed state on 24 January 2024. He said for the past 4 years he had severe damp and mould and despite the landlord treating it, it still occurred. The resident said his child has asthma, and the property is not suitable. The landlord inspected on 2 February 2024 and completed a mould wash the same day. It organised an extractor fan repair which it completed on 4 March 2024.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 March 2024. He said he first requested a move in 2019 when his wife became pregnant. This was due to the property condition and not having enough space. His child has been to hospital with his asthma. He supplied supporting letters to say a move was important. The resident detailed an occasion when the landlord called him to view a property, but it gave him incorrect information. The resident refused the property as it did not meet their needs.
  4. The landlord responded on 12 April 2024. It apologised for the delay and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It apologised for any miscommunication regarding the viewing. It estimated the resident would be on the waiting list for 8 years. It reviewed the resident’s application to move and suggested ways to speed this up. This was to expand the areas he would move to and consider Housing Association properties as they have most of the borough’s housing stock. The resident had confirmed to the landlord that damp and mould was the main property condition issue. The landlord stated it first visited the resident in 2021. More recently it attended on 2 February 2024. It found low lying mould behind the sofa in the living room. The property was very humid, with the window trickle vents closed. The landlord completed a mould wash on the property.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 17 April 2024. In relation to his request to be moved, he said he would consider all areas, but he wished to stay with the local authority, not to move to a Housing Association property. Where damp and mould was concerned, he stated he regularly cleaned off the mould for his son’s health, this is the reason the mould is only at a low level. The resident understood the volume of cases like his, but he did not believe the supporting evidence he had provided was adequately assessed.
  6. The landlord responded on 18 September 2024. It apologised for the delay and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it assessed the property for damp and mould and did not find any leaks or water ingress. The issues were due to increased condensation and a lack of ventilation and space. The landlord confirmed managing the condensation was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord had ensured there was adequate ventilation, but the mould would not be eradicated due to the number of people living in the studio flat. The landlord noted the resident raised a faulty kitchen extractor fan. It said it attended, however the resident said it did not need further attention as it was working. The landlord understood the resident’s need to move. It confirmed he was in band 2 and encouraged him to bid on suitable properties. It reiterated the need to consider Housing Association properties and provided information on other ways to move.
  7. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling as the main issue is the lack of space and that they are overcrowded. As a resolution he would like the landlord to offer his family a move.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot investigate is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, complaint element a) falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. This is as the resident’s complaint about the length of time he was waiting for a property, and that the landlord had not considered his circumstances adequately, are matters which properly fall under the scope of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Paragraph 42.j. explains that we would not consider a complaint which falls within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he should do so via the LGSCO.
  4. In addition, the resident’s requested resolution for the landlord to move him, is not one we are able to order. This is in line with our remedies guide as we may adversely affect another applicant if we order a move for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould

  1. The resident stated there was only low-lying mould as he cleans it off regularly. This is the correct thing for the resident to do as this will supress the mould growth and improves the living conditions for his family. The landlord took humidity readings, this would represent the issues in the flat.
  2. The landlord’s policy states it will complete a stage 1 mould inspection and any necessary mould wash in 6 working days. The landlord achieved this when it completed the inspection and mould wash on 2 February 2024.
  3. The landlord raised a repair to fix the extractor fan on 8 February 2024. It completed this on 4 March 2024. The landlord’s online repair priorities state it attempts to complete non-emergency repairs in 12 days. The landlord completed the job in double this time, therefore it did not meet its target.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 mould inspection on 2 February 2024, it did not identify a need for a stage 2 inspection. We can see in internal communication the landlord asked on 12 April 2024 for a damp and mould inspection to be completed. We have not seen evidence the landlord did this or any reasons why it did not. In our Spotlight on damp and mould report, we state landlords need to ensure their responses to report of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord did not complete the damp and mould inspection for 5 months after saying it was something it wanted to do. This did not reflect the urgency of the issue and left the resident without resolution for longer than necessary.
  5. The next inspection we have seen evidence of the landlord completing was on 2 September 2024. In this the landlord identified it would complete the following actions:
    1. Install a full property flat-master system.
    2. Install passive vents in the living room and bedroom.
    3. Recommission the boiler and resolve the “visible leaks.”
    4. Repair the basin leak.
  6. The day after the inspection the landlord called the resident to book the works in. The resident said he wanted to cancel them, he did not think the works would improve their situation. Ideally, he wanted to move. The landlord put the works on hold. It asked its local officer to contact the resident to seek a resolution. We have not seen evidence the landlord contacted the resident in the 2 weeks between this request and when it sent the final response letter.
  7. The landlord in its final response letter dated 18 September 2024 stated it had identified no leaks, and it had ensured there was adequate ventilation. The landlord did not refer to the findings in its inspection report or the fact the resident had refused the works. Therefore, the landlord’s final response letter did not reflect the situation. This was not positive complaint handling and would be likely to have added to the resident’s frustration.
  8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states if a hazard is identified, it will complete emergency repairs in 24 hours. If there is a hazard which poses a significant risk to the resident, the landlord will begin repair work in 7 working days. If no hazard is identified the repairs will be completed in line with the repairs policy. From the inspection report dated 2 September 2024, the landlord’s damp and mould team planned to install the flat-master and the vents, while the gas and repairs team were due to resolve the boiler and basin issues. As the landlord identified the need to install vents and a flat-master it would be reasonable to assume it had identified a hazard. The landlord’s records do not conclusively show when it resolved the boiler repair, but that it was still an issue in December 2024. The resident reported the landlord fixed the boiler in January 2025. The resident reported he resolved the basin leak. The leaks from the boiler and basin would have contributed to moisture in the property. As such the landlord should have resolved this at least in line with the 12 day target in its repairs policy. While we have not got definitive evidence of when the landlord resolved the boiler, we have seen it was still causing an issue two months later.
  9. At the date of this report, the landlord has not installed the vents and flat-master system. We are aware there is a meeting between the landlord, its contractor, and the resident to discuss the proposed installation of these.
  10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states if the investigation finds a hazard, it will take into consideration all vulnerabilities of the resident and their household. The resident clearly said to the landlord he believed the property was not safe for his child. We have not seen evidence the landlord considered this in its decision making. This is not in line with the landlord’s policy and does not act in line with our Spotlight report on damp and mould.
  11. Through the landlord’s handling of the reports of mould it did not follow our dispute resolution principles. While the landlord attended and completed the inspection and mould wash in line with its policy, it did not act in line for the boiler and extractor fan repairs. It did not follow its fair processes. In addition, the landlord did not arrange an inspection which it thought was necessary in April until 5 months later in September 2024. The landlord recognised there were works which it could install to improve the resident’s home. These installations remain outstanding at the date of this report, however we recognise the mitigating factor of the resident not providing access. We have not seen evidence the landlord considered the vulnerabilities of the household when making decisions. The landlord’s final response did not accurately reflect its findings. This meant the landlord did not adequately assess the resident’s position and it did not attempt to put things right. It did not evidence any learning. As such the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould.
  12. We have ordered the landlord to put right its failings. We have ordered that it is to provide the resident and the Ombudsman an update as to the outcome of the meeting scheduled to take place in early May. We wish to know how the landlord plans to remedy the situation, and for it to pay specific attention to the medical evidence concerning the child’s health. Also, if the landlord has actions to complete, we wish to know the time frame for completing these. If a meeting is not organised the landlord is to arrange one. We have awarded the resident a total of £400 in compensation for landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould. This is in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy which allows for awards of £200 for distress, £100 for the delays, and £100 for poor service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord was late in issuing both its complaint responses. The landlord has a target of 10 working days for the stage 1 and 20 working days for the final response. It sent the stage 1 after 13 working days and the final response after 108 working days. The landlord extended the deadline for its final response letter. This gave another 20 working days to respond, but it missed that target. It also did not keep the resident informed of when he could expect a response. We can see the resident was concerned by this lack of contact. He contacted the landlord on a number of occasions, he created a Member’s enquiry, and involved our Service to try to progress its response.
  2. The landlord acknowledged it was late in both responses and apologised for this. Aside the apology it did not attempt to put things right. Its complaints policy allows it to offer compensation in this situation.
  3. Through its complaint handling, the landlord did not follow our dispute resolution principles. It did not follow its fair processes. It did not treat the resident fairly as it did not fully acknowledge the impact of the delay. It did not attempt to put things right or evidence any learning. As such the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. We have ordered the landlord to put right its failings in complaint handling by paying £150 compensation to the resident for its late responses. This is in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy which recommends awards of up to this amount in recognition of up to 6 months complaint handling delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. This consists of:
    1. £400 for its failures in its handling the resident’s reports of mould.
    2. £150 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord is to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an update from the meeting scheduled to take place in early May. The update is to include realistic timescales for completing any identified actions. We wish to know how the landlord plans to remedy the situation, and for it to pay specific attention to the medical evidence concerning the child’s health. If a meeting is not organised the landlord is to arrange one.
  3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.