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 Hackney (202400786)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400786

London Borough of Hackney

24 July 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 damp, mould, and the subsequent repairs in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident lives with her daughter who has autism.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident reported damp in her living room, kitchen, and bathroom on 17 November 2022. The landlord raised a repair for this and said to investigate for any concealed leaks which could be causing the damp. The landlord inspected the property on 21 November 2022. It raised the following works:
    1. Bathroom – Renew bottom tiles and silicone sealant. Renew floor covering. Service extractor fan and remove mould growth.
    2. Living room – Mould growth to the right hand corner external wall at high level.
    3. Kitchen – Renew silicone sealant around worktop and wall tiles around sink. Remove mould growth (window and reveals). Renew base unit under sink. Renew skirting.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 January 2024. She said she contacted the landlord in February 2023 regarding the outstanding repairs in the kitchen, living room, and bathroom. She said she had been passed around between the landlord and the contractors. The resident said she had waited long enough and wanted the landlord to complete the repairs.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. It said it was evident that there had been a significant lapse in communication and action on its part. It apologised and acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said following the inspection carried out in 2022, it did not promptly review the estimates provided or follow up on the repairs. It said this led to the delays and lack of progress. It said it would contact the resident by 12 February 2024 to schedule the repair works. The landlord offered £300 compensation to acknowledge its failure.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 February 2024. She said that both herself and her daughter, who is autistic, had been living in the horrific conditions since 2022. She said she did not understand why it had taken so long for the landlord to deal with it. The resident did not feel the compensation sufficiently reflected the amount of time she had been waiting. She said a surveyor had attended that day and said there may be a leak from the flat above hers, which may be causing the black mould in her living room.
  6. She said the landlord had stated she would get a new sink due to the limescale and black debris coming out of the taps. She said it was yet to do this and she would like a new sink and taps. She said the landlord had also told her that it would change her worktops and drawers. She said the landlord had only changed 5 doors which left her kitchen looking incomplete. She asked the landlord to replace the outstanding worktops and cupboards.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 March 2024. It said it had completed the repairs as of 19 February 2024 and apologised for the delay in doing so. It said the delay occurred due to the original work order not being authorised due to an administrative oversight/error. It said it had raised this with the manager of the service to avoid it happening again. It awarded a total of £900 in compensation. £600 of the compensation was to reflect the level of fault in the case. It said £300 of the compensation was in consideration of the vulnerability issues the resident raised regarding her daughter’s autism.
  8. The landlord said the resident had raised 2 other issues at stage 2 which it would treat as service requests and separate to the complaint. It confirmed it had arranged an appointment for 14 March 2024 in relation to those issues.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had a surveyor visit her flat and there were outstanding jobs for the mould and corrosion of the walls in her hallway, as well as a switch to turn on her shower. She said the landlord had told her it would renovate her flat at some point that year. The resident reiterated that the landlord had not completed all the jobs and that she has an autistic child. She wanted to know if the compensation offered by the landlord was a fair amount in all the circumstances.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her stage 2 escalation and in her correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised issues which were not included within her original complaint. These include a request for a new bathroom sink and kitchen worktops, and drawers. It also includes her concerns following the surveyor’s visit in February 2024 and renovations in the property. As stated, the resident did not raise these issues in her formal complaint and as they were treated as a service request by the landlord, they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, we are not able to investigate those aspects of the resident’s complaint.
  2. For the avoidance of doubt, this report will consider the issue raised in the formal complaint which was the time taken for the landlord to complete the repairs identified following the inspection in 2022.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and the subsequent repairs in the property.

  1. The landlord has not disputed that there were failings in this case which likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it attended to inspect the resident’s property within 2 working days of the report on 17 November 2022. This was reasonable. The initial repair raised asked for investigation into any concealed leaks. However, the inspection notes on 21 November 2022 do not confirm what action the landlord took, if any, to investigate the possible leaks. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that in November 2023, a leak was stopped from the flat above. But it has not provided any further information regarding the circumstances which led to this.
  3. Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their repair obligations. In not providing sufficient information regarding the possible leak, we cannot determine that the landlord’s handling of the issues at the time was appropriate.
  4. Despite raising an order for the follow on works in November 2022, the landlord did not complete the works until 19 February 2024. This was 1 year and 3 months after the inspection which was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repair responsibilities or obligations. The impact of this likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in chasing the landlord and who described her living conditions as “horrific.”
  5. The landlord apologised for and acknowledged the delay in its complaint responses. It said the delay was due to not authorising the original work order. It said it had raised this with the manager of the service to avoid it happening again. The landlord’s response was reasonable, it identified the cause of its failure and took steps to prevent it repeating the same mistakes. This shows an effort to put things right and to learn from outcomes.
  6. It was positive that as well as scheduling the outstanding repairs, a surveyor reviewed the work carried out and considered the additional concerns raised by the resident. This was appropriate action to take given the time which had lapsed since the last inspection and the more recent issues raised by the resident.
  7. The resident stated that she contacted the landlord in February 2023, however, the landlord did not provide its position on this contact in its complaint responses. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a work order on 21 February 2023 for the outstanding repairs and marked it as completed, which was not appropriate. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have outlined what action it took following the resident’s report in 2023 and why it raised the repair but then marked it as completed.
  8. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident stated that both herself and her daughter who was autistic had been living in horrendous conditions since 2022. She felt that the £300 offered in the stage 1 response was not sufficient for the time she had waited for the landlord to complete the repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £900 which was to reflect the time taken, the level of fault, and recognition of the vulnerabilities in the household.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy provides guidelines for awarding compensation. For failures which have had a significant impact on the resident, it suggests an award of £600 to £1,000. The Ombudsman therefore finds the total amount offered in the stage 2 response was proportionate to the failings and the likely impact on the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to have awarded £300 of the compensation in recognition of how the household may have been further impacted as a result of the reported vulnerabilities.
  10. To conclude, there was a significant delay in the landlord’s handling of the reported damp, mould, and the subsequent repairs required in the property. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord has evidenced fairness in its complaint responses by acknowledging its failures and the impact caused to the resident. It aimed to put things right by apologising for those failures, it offered a proportionate amount of compensation to reflect the impact and completed the outstanding repairs. It has shown learning from its outcomes by raising the issues with the service manager to ensure its failure does not happen again.
  11. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and the subsequent repairs in the property.
  12. As part of its commitment to the recommendations identified in our special investigation report about the landlord published in May 2025, the landlord will produce a performance reporting framework. This will ensure relevant scrutiny and oversight functions are in place for reports of leaks, damp, and mould. Such actions should assist the landlord in its learning from outcomes and in taking steps to ensure it does not repeat the same mistakes in future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and the subsequent repairs in the property.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should re-offer the £900 in compensation to the resident.