Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Hackney (202207449)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207449

London Borough of Hackney

28 February 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 reports about damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom maisonette owned by the landlord. She has heart problems and lives with her 2 adult daughters who both have respiratory illnesses.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in or around August 2022 to report damp throughout the property. Its records show that it completed remedial works on 16 December 2022, however she contacted it on 11 January 2023 to report that it had not completed the bedroom.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 May 2023. She stated that the damp had returned in the kitchen and repairs to the bedroom were still outstanding. She asked it to complete the works and pay compensation. It issued its stage 1 response on 5 May 2023. It said it had arranged an inspection for 9 May 2023, and would consider compensation after this.
  4. The landlord completed further works to the kitchen and bedroom on 16 June 2023. However, the resident contacted it on 11 July 2023 to report ongoing problems with the kitchen wall. She said this had affected her health and this was causing the family to become stressed. It arranged follow-up inspections to try to identify the cause and offered £250 in compensation, which she declined.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 24 October 2023. She said the kitchen wall was now mouldy. It issued its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023. It gave an updated account of its actions, explained the findings of the most recent inspection, and said its contractor would contact her to arrange further works. It apologised for the delays and increased its offer of compensation to £550 in total.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response and the level of compensation it had offered. She told us she would like it to complete the outstanding works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that remedial works have not resolved the damp problem in her kitchen, and further issues have developed since her complaint. In the interests of fairness, we will not investigate these matters as the landlord has not had the chance to respond under its complaints procedure. This investigation will consider the events from December 2022 to the landlord’s final response of 28 November 2023. The resident can raise a new complaint about further issues and ask us to open a new investigation if she is unhappy with its final response.
  2. The resident has said the situation has made her and her family unwell. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of her complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Damp and mould

  1. Issues with damp and mould are often complex, and it can take time to find the cause. This can make it difficult for landlords to remedy the problem as quickly as its residents would expect. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states that a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach, and its responses must be prompt and reflect the urgency of the issue. We expect landlords to communicate well between teams and departments, and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for making sure it resolves complaints and reports relating to damp and mould, including follow up or aftercare.
  2. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, we will consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord’s repairs log states that the remedial works of December 2022 had included removing damaged plasterwork, filling gaps, replacing damaged tiles and sealant, completing mould washes, and applying stain block and mould inhibitor paint. It completed these works in the kitchen, bathroom and one of the bedrooms. It is unclear which bedroom this was, but context suggests this was her daughter’s room. There is no record that it responded to her report about this being unfinished, which is contrary to the Spotlight report and was a failing.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 May 2023. She repeated that works to the bedroom remained outstanding, and the damp had returned in the kitchen. This is the first evidence that she had reported further issues with the kitchen, and it responded promptly by arranging an inspection for 3 working days later. This was in line with its repairs guide, which states that it will respond to urgent reports within 5 working days and defines “urgent” as issues which could cause inconvenience for the resident and affect the condition of the property. This also reflects the expectations set out in the Spotlight report. It confirmed this in its stage 1 response of 5 May 2023, and apologised for the inconvenience. It was reasonable for it to wait for the results of the inspection before considering compensation, as it needed to assess the situation first.
  5. The inspection found that the landlord needed to conduct further works to the kitchen and bedroom, and it completed these on 19 June 2023. However, the resident contacted it on 11 July 2023 to report that the paint and plaster on her kitchen wall was “bubbling”. Its contractor inspected the property again on 2 August 2023 but said they needed to conduct a further visit with the landlord present.
  6. The landlord arranged the joint visit for 1 September 2023. There was a delay as the resident was in hospital, and it then needed to find a suitable date for all parties. It was unable to conclude what was causing the damp, and said it needed to check the drainage system for any blockages or leaks. It wrote to her on 11 September 2023 to confirm this and offered her £250 in compensation for avoidable delays and distress. The resident replied that same day to say the compensation offer was unacceptable, the process was taking too long, and she would contact the Ombudsman. There is no evidence that the landlord responded.
  7. A contractor inspected the drainage on 5 October 2023. It found no issues, and said the cause of the problem was likely to be a leak from an adjoining flat which the landlord also owned. The contractor did not send the report to the landlord, and it did not request this until the resident asked it to escalate her complaint on 24 October 2023. She said the kitchen wall was now mouldy and the landlord had not dealt with the situation well. She was also worried about her family’s health, given that they each had medical issues including breathing difficulties.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord was in regular contact with its contractor and repairs team throughout November 2023, and a specific officer took ownership of the case. It had to request the drainage report 3 times and made at least 4 update requests to the repairs team regarding works to the adjoining flat. This demonstrates issues with internal communication, however the officer made reasonable efforts, escalated chasers to the relevant manager, and made it clear that this was now a stage 2 complaint. This shows positive learning from the Spotlight report, and we encourage the landlord to feed these issues back to the relevant teams so it can agree better communication in the future.
  9. The landlord updated the resident on 23 November 2023. According to its records, it had not been in prior contact with her since 11 September 2023. Although there were few material developments, it should have kept her informed. The Spotlight report is clear on the importance of communicating and updating residents, and it failed to do this. It is also not clear why it did not request a copy of the drainage report earlier.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was arranging the necessary repairs to the adjoining flat and it would arrange the follow-up works to her kitchen once it had completed these. It found fault with its handling of the repairs and apologised for this. It increased its compensation offer to £550 in total, for avoidable distress and delays. This was in line with its compensation policy, which suggests up to £300 for moderate distress but allows for a higher amount if this has been over a prolonged period. This also aligns with our remedies guidance.
  11. When the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, she stipulated that she had requested this before and asked it to “stop delaying”. It should have considered whether her email of 11 September 2023 was an escalation request, given that she had expressed dissatisfaction and mentioned this Service. However, it has now introduced a complaints policy which defines a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made” which is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We encourage it to be mindful of this in future, and it should contact a resident for clarification if there is any doubt.
  12. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation. The Spotlight report requires that a landlord’s remedy reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Its offer was reasonable and demonstrates that it had taken the matter seriously. Overall, it showed learning from the Spotlight report and, where it had not done this, it recognised its failings and took sufficient action to remedy this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pays the £550 previously offered if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is on this basis. It should pay this directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears.
  2. Due to the resident’s assertions that the damp problem is ongoing, the landlord should make sure it has provided an up-to-date schedule of works or, if this is not possible, kept her informed about any ongoing inspections or other developments.