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 Islington (202301334)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301334

Islington Council

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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property upon moving in.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a 1 bedroom basement flat. The resident’s tenancy started at the property on 6 September 2021.
  2. The resident has multiple physical and mental health issues. Communication with us and the landlord has been via the resident’s brother, who is her representative. For readability, any communication from the resident or their representative referenced in this report has been referred to as being from the resident.
  3. The resident brought a related complaint to us under our reference 202415690. Due to the related nature of the complaints, we have considered both in this investigation.
  4. Between October 2021 and January 2022, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the condition of the property upon moving in. She said the property was damp and the flooring was unsafe. She also queried fire exits and why the property had not been decorated before she moved in. She made a complaint about these issues on 21 January 2022. She felt the condition of the property had impacted her health.
  5. A damp inspection was carried out on 28 Janaury 2022 and repointing works were identified. The landlord responded to the complaint on 11 February 2022 and outlined the action it had taken. The resident escalated the matter as the landlord had not addressed all aspects of her complaint, including the damp, emergency exits and the flooring. The landlord sent a follow-on response addressing these issues on 28 February 2022.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 8 March 2022. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 April 2023. The resident referred the matter to us on 23 June 2023. She said she was unhappy with the response about the property condition and the conduct of contractors.
  7. The resident made another complaint on 9 November 2023. She raised concerns about damp and the flooring and the impact on her health. The landlord responded and reiterated the action it had taken.
  8. She made a further complaint on 16 August 2024 in respect of the same issues. The landlord advised that it had already responded at stage 2 in April 2023. It offered additional compensation for the damp issue.
  9. The resident asked us to investigate. She said the property had not been fit for purpose and had impacted her health. She said she had not been able to sleep in her bedroom for around 2 years due to damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident feels that her physical health has been impacted by the condition of the property. The courts are the best place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased information on the diagnosis, prognosis and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, this can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy for this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if there is evidence of a landlord failing, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
  2. The resident has said as resolution to the case, she would like to move to a different property. We are not able to tell a landlord to move the resident or comment on how it should allocate available properties. Instead our investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

Response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould

  1. It is not in dispute by the landlord that it is responsible for the repairs required in this case, specifically, to prevent water entering the property.
  2. It is not clear when the resident first reported damp. This is indicative of poor record keeping. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence said it carried out a damp survey on 28 October 2021. It was not able to provide a copy of notes from this survey to us, nor did it have a record of what the survey found. The landlord arranged works for 16 November 2021 to apply cement to the back window, paint skirting with anti-mould paint and hack off and replaster an area of wall. We have not seen a record of this work having been completed.
  3. Following another report from the resident of damp in the kitchen in early January 2022, the landlord arranged another inspection for 21 January 2022. The contractor attended a day early, on 20 January 2022. This was not appropriate. Landlords must give residents reasonable notice of appointments and should keep to them unless both the landlord and resident agree to change the date. The contractor noted that the resident said her partner had recently passed away. The contractor re-attended the following day to carry out a damp inspection but there was no access to the property.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 21 January 2022. She said the property was not in a condition to be rented and her health was being impacted as a result. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord conducted a damp inspection on 28 January 2022. It found that the pointing on the outside wall needed to be repaired.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 11 February 2022, however, it did not address the damp issue directly. It provided a follow-up response on 28 February 2022. It said it had arranged pointing works for 24 February 2022. The resident declined this work and said that it was no longer needed. The landlord advised her that she could reopen the work order if she wanted the work done.
  6. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. The Decent Home Standard and section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require landlords to ensure properties are fit for human habitation and free from hazards as set out in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
  7. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. In addition, our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
  8. Records show the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Despite this, there is no evidence it tried to understand the reasons she had declined the work. It was not proactive in trying to rebook the work and instead put the responsibility to do so on the resident. The landlord had been aware since 28 January 2022 that repointing work was required to address the damp issue. There is no evidence that the resident asked for this work to be rescheduled. In failing to understand the resident’s reason for declining the work, the landlord did not show that it had done all it could do to reduce this possible hazard. Moreover, the landlord also has a duty to ensure its assets are well-maintained.
  9. Following this, we have not seen any evidence of action taken by the landlord to address the damp until 20 March 2023, over a year later. On that occasion, a contractor attended but there was no access.
  10. The resident made another complaint on 9 November 2023. She reiterated her concerns about damp and the impact on her health. She requested to be moved to a different property. The landlord responded to this by arranging another damp inspection on 13 November 2023. This inspection found damp around the kitchen window. It also noted that the roof terrace of the property above the resident’s had a crack and needed repointing. The inspection noted once the external work was done, part of the plaster in the resident’s kitchen would need to be hacked off and skimmed. The landlord arranged an appointment for 17 November 2023 for the external works.
  11. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 27 November 2023. It said as follows:
    1. A contractor had attended on 17 November 2023 and confirmed a roofer would be needed. It could not see this requirement had been raised as a job with its contractors/staff. It had requested this be arranged along with emergency treatment for mould.
    2. It had passed the resident’s request to move property to the appropriate department. It signposted the resident to the Occupational Therapy team.
    3. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay in raising follow-on works with roofers.
  12. On 28 November 2023 a damp inspection was carried out. The inspection report noted:
    1. There were high damp meter readings in the kitchen and advanced mould growth. There were areas of blown plaster near the window.
    2. There were 2 cracks in the asphalt roof of the property above the resident’s flat. The work to repair this issue had been booked for 14 December 2023.
    3. The rainwater downpipe was blocked.
  13. On 27 December 2023 the landlord noted that damp works had been attended “several” times, but there had been no access for its staff. The resident had asked for the works to be rearranged for another time. As such, the landlord rebooked the roofing repair for 25 January 2024. On that occasion, access was not granted again. The landlord acknowledged it had mistakenly made the appointment with a neighbouring property. Work to the roof was completed on 14 March 2024.
  14. The resident made a further complaint on 16 August 2024 about damp at the property. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 August 2024 and said as follows:
    1. It apologised it had made the roofing appointment with a neighbouring property. It had completed the work on 14 March 2024.
    2. It had arranged internal works for 25 April 2024. However, the resident had asked that this be rescheduled. The contractor reattended on 29 April 2024 but access was denied. It had completed some internal work on 4 July 2024. A follow-on appointment was made for 7 August 2024 but there was no access. It had rebooked this appointment for 13 September 2024.
    3. It offered an additional £374.94 compensation for the delay between 25 January 2024 and 13 September 2024.
  15. It is not clear when the resident escalated the matter, however, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 17 October 2024. It said as follows:
    1. It had provided forms for the resident to fill out for her request to move property.
    2. The information it provided in its stage 1 response about the work being scheduled for 13 September 2024, was incorrect. It asked the resident to let it know if work was still outstanding.
    3. It offered additional compensation as follows:
      1. £83.32 for the additional 2 month delay between October and November 2024.
      2. £150 for distress.
      3. £150 for inconvenience.
  16. Review of the landlord’s stage 2 response shows it responded appropriately to the resident’s request to be rehoused. It signposted her to the appropriate department and also Occupational Health because of her health requirements.
  17. However, as part of its handling of the resident’s complaint and the works required, the landlord did not have an accurate record of when internal work was scheduled for, or if this work had been completed. It is reasonable to expect the landlord should be able to clarify how it has managed the complaint and associated works from its record keeping. It’s reliance on asking the resident if work had been completed was not appropriate.
  18. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the  offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
  19. The total compensation offered for the failures in respect of the damp and mould was £808.26. The landlord subsequently rounded this up to £810. This amount is within the range suggested by our remedies guidance when there have been failures which had a significant impact on a resident.
  20. In assessing the appropriateness of the landlord’s offer, our investigation has identified the following failures in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issue:
    1. The landlord could not provide a copy of the damp survey from 28 October 2021. It did not have a record of what had been found or recommended.
    2. Works had been arranged for 16 November 2021, however, there was no record from the landlord of these going ahead.
    3. The damp was first reported in October 2021. External work to prevent water entering the property was completed on 14 March 2024. This was a period of 29 months after the landlord first became aware of the issue. The resident has said she has not been able to use her bedroom for 2 years. However, we have not seen any correspondence informing the landlord of this. The evidence shows there were difficulties for the landlord to gain access to the property and some works were delayed at the resident’s request. However, the overall time period to complete the external work to prevent water entering the property was not appropriate.
    4. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered the potential hazard caused to the resident by the ongoing damp and mould. Despite being aware of her vulnerabilities and health concerns, it lacked urgency to resolve the situation or demonstrate the professional curiosity to understand the resident’s reluctance to allow access. It unreasonably put the responsibility to rearrange appointments on the resident.
    5. The landlord mistakenly made an appointment for external works with a neighbouring property. This delayed works being completed.
    6. The landlord provided incorrect information in its complaint response by saying internal work had been scheduled for 13 September 2024. It did not have a record of whether this had been completed.
  21. Although the landlord acknowledged some of its failures, its offer of compensation was not sufficient to reflect the inconvenience caused by its inability to proactively resolve the situation for the vulnerable resident, over a prolonged period. This amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect on the resident over the period of time, we have ordered additional compensation of £190. This brings the total to £1,000. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been serious failures.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the property upon moving in

  1. The resident made various complaints to the landlord about her concerns when she moved in. The complaints concerned the decoration of the property, the fire escapes and the condition of the flooring. The issues raised by the resident have been considered separately for clarity.

Decoration works

  1. The tenancy agreement says that the resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property. It is not clear when the resident first reported the property required decoration. However, the landlord advised her on 15 November 2021 that re-decoration was a resident’s responsibility. It explained it had given her a decoration voucher to use to pay for paint. It also said that, due to her vulnerabilities, she may be eligible for its Assisted Decorations Scheme in 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to proactively offer this option and this showed it had taken her vulnerabilities into account in its decision making. The landlord’s response also reflected the content of its repairs policy which says that the Assisted Decorations Scheme is offered to residents who, through age or disability, find it difficult to keep their home in good decorative order.
  2. The resident reiterated she was unable to decorate due to health issues. The landlord continued to explain that it was not required to decorate. It noted the resident had not handed the keys back to her previous property for around 2 months after her new tenancy began. As such, there had been time for her to arrange decoration before moving in.
  3. In January 2022 the resident told the landlord that her friends had helped decorate the property. However, contradictory information was provided within the resident’s escalation request of 8 March 2022, in which she said that professional redecoration had cost £3,000.
  4. Within its stage 2 response from 12 April 2023 the landlord reiterated it did not redecorate properties before they were rented out. Instead it provides decoration vouchers. It acknowledged it should have offered the resident help to redecorate when it had become aware of her vulnerabilities. It apologised that this did not happen and offered £100 compensation.
  5. This offer of compensation was in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident. The evidence shows the landlord responded to the resident’s request for redecoration in line with the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. It was proactive in offering her additional support by way of its Assisted Decorations Scheme and it recognised that it could have gone further to support her. As such, its offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.

Fire escapes

  1. The resident raised concerns about the fire escapes with the landlord on 16 November 2021. She said an emergency exit had been blocked by incorrectly installed scaffolding. Later that month she said she could not get out of the property or bring furniture in. The landlord responded on 30 November 2021 and told her the scaffolding did not obstruct the communal front door, which was the designated emergency exit. It asked her to clarify what she meant by her concern that she could not get out of the property.
  2. The resident reiterated that scaffolding was blocking the emergency exit. She said due to the tight hallway, it was impossible to get large furniture into her flat. She said the only access was via a front well area.
  3. The landlord explained on 15 December 2021 that it did not see the front windows of the property as being emergency exits. There was a security grill covering the void/well area, the windows could not be used in any event as an emergency exit. It said because of this, it would not fit a ladder in the area which the resident had requested. It did say however, that it committed to inspect the property in case it had misunderstood what the resident had told it. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take given the nature of the resident’s concerns.
  4. Within its stage 1 follow-on response of 28 February 2022, the landlord said that the well/void area was not a fire escape. As such, it would not install a ladder. It explained the main communal front door was the fire escape from the building.
  5. It reiterated its response at stage 2 response on 12 April 2023. It explained that there was not a legal requirement for the property to have more than one fire exit. It advised the grill would not be removed and it would not install a ladder in the void/well area. It confirmed that furniture could be brought in through the front of the property.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord provided consistent advice in response to the resident’s concerns. It explained where the fire exit was and that other areas which had been blocked off were not designed for the purpose of being a fire escape. Its decision not to install a ladder in the void/well area was consistent with its approach and it explained the reasons for its decision making to the resident.

Flooring

  1. The resident raised her concerns about the condition of the floorboards on 16 November and 1 December 2021. She said the flooring was in poor condition, nails were sticking out and it was dangerous. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the floorboards.
  2. Its repairs policy says it aims to respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord said on 15 December 2021 it had asked a contractor to inspect the floorboards. Although it was appropriate to inspect the floorboards, it took 27 working days for it to attend to do so on 23 December 2021. This was 7 days outside the response timeframe. There was no access to the property on that occasion and the contractor re-attended on 20 January 2022. It noted that the resident’s partner had recently passed away.
  3. The landlord offered another appointment of 28 January 2022 to assess the flooring, however, this was not convenient for the resident. A contractor attended on 4 February 2022. They noted the resident had declined to pull up the carpet herself or sign a waiver for it to do so. It noted that the bedroom flooring had “bouncy hardboards” and there were uneven boards in the living room.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 21 January 2022. She said as follows:
    1. The landlord had made 2 different appointments to attend for a flooring inspection and in connection with damp at the property. These were for 20 and 21 January 2022. However, both contractors had attended on 20 January 2022. Around this time her partner had passed away and she was in a state of shock.
    2. The landlord needed to arrange for the carpets to be taken up and fitted back once the flooring had been repaired.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 11 February 2022. It said as follows:
    1. It had replaced some of the floorboards while the property was empty. The work had been inspected and passed.
    2. Both inspections required at the property had taken place on 20 January 2022, rather than on separate dates, as previously agreed. It apologised for any inconvenience this caused. It acknowledged it should have communicated this change to the resident.
    3. It had attended on 4 February 2022 to inspect the flooring. The resident was unwilling to lift the carpet herself. As such, it would need her to sign a waiver allowing it to lift the carpet, assess the damage and arrange any repairs.
  6. It reiterated this information within its follow-on stage 1 response on 28 February 2022. It asked the resident to reconsider signing a waiver to enable it to lift the carpet. Within her escalation request of 8 March 2022 the resident said the flooring contractor should not have been at the property on 4 February 2022. She said the contractor did not have permission to ask her to sign a waiver.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 April 2023. It said as follows:
    1. It acknowledged the resident had been given incorrect information about appointments for the damp and flooring inspections. It had apologised for this error.
    2. It was sorry to hear that the resident’s partner had passed away and she was in a state of shock when the flooring operative asked her to sign a waiver. Although the operative was following the correct procedure, it apologised for any additional worry this had caused.
    3. The waiver needed to be signed as the resident did not want to lift the carpet herself. It could not inspect the flooring until the waiver was signed.
  8. Analysis of the landlord’s response shows it did not acknowledge it had taken too long to initially inspect the flooring in line with its repairs policy. However, once access had been gained in February 2022, it was reasonable and necessary for it to ask for the resident to sign a waiver before it could lift the carpet. It explained a waiver was required unless the resident was happy to lift the carpets herself. It was appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident it could not fulfil its repair obligations until the carpet was moved.
  9. Its responses appropriately apologised for contractors attending on 20 January 2022 instead of on consecutive days. The landlord showed empathy by acknowledging the resident would have been distressed by the change given her personal circumstances.
  10. The evidence shows following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, the flooring was inspected in November 2023. The contractor noted it was a “little bit uneven” but works to repair it were not required. The landlord confirmed on 9 August 2024 that it would not be carrying out any work to the flooring. The resident queried this and said it was a hazard. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 29 August 2024 and said that it had already addressed the complaint.
  11. Although the landlord generally acted appropriately in respect of the resident’s concerns about her flooring, it took too long to make arrangements to inspect the flooring following the resident’s initial report. It failed to acknowledge this within its complaint responses.

Conclusion – response to the resident’s concerns about the property upon moving in

  1. The evidence shows the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the property upon moving in were mostly appropriate and reasonable. However, it failed to comply with its repairs policy timescales in relation to making arrangements to inspect the flooring after the resident’s report. As such, the delay caused amounts to a determination of service failure for this complaint point. To acknowledge the effect of this on the resident, compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was minor failure by the landlord and it did not appropriately acknowledge this.

Complaint handling

  1. Due to a number of complaints being submitted about similar matters, these have been considered separately below for clarity.

Complaint A

  1. The resident submitted complaint A on 21 January 2022 about the condition of the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of complaint A said it aimed to respond at stage 1 within 21 days. At stage 2 it aimed to do so within 28 days.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 11 February 2022. This was within the timeframe of its policy. However, the landlord did not address all of the aspects of complaint. The resident escalated her complaint on that basis. The landlord sent a follow-on stage 1 response on 28 February 2022 addressing the other issues.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 8 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 28 March 2022. It subsequently said on 6, 9 and 10 May 2022 that its response would be delayed. Following this, there was a gap in its communication about the complaint until it sent a stage 2 response on 12 April 2023. This was over 13 months after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £325 compensation. However, it did not explain why this had happened or how it would prevent such a delay in the future.
  5. Although compensation was appropriate to acknowledge the effect of the 13 month delay, the offer was not proportionate to the failing, given the period of time the response was delayed. The failure to comply with the timescales set out in its policy impacted the resident’s ability to bring her complaint to us for investigation and significantly delayed her achieving resolution for the issued raised.

Complaint B

  1. The resident made complaint B on 9 November 2023. At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said that it aimed to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at stage 1 and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
  2. In complaint B the resident raised concerns about damp and the flooring at the property and the impact the condition of the property was having on her health. The landlord acknowledged this the following day. It sent the stage 1 response on 27 November 2023. This was 11 working days after the escalation, so 1 day over its response timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this delay and offered £25 compensation.

Complaint C

  1. The resident submitted complaint C on 16 August 2024. The complaint was about damp, the floorboards and access via the front grill at the property. The landlord responded at stage 1 within the timescales set out in its policy on 29 August 2024. It told the resident it had already responded to the issues she was raising in its stage 2 response from April 2023.
  2. It is not clear when the resident escalated the matter, however, the landlord acknowledged a request to do so on 23 September 2024. It responded at stage 2 on 17 October 2024, within the timescales of its policy. It reiterated the action it had taken and set out previously in its stage 1 response.
  3. As the landlord had already responded to the issues complained about, it was reasonable for it not to accept this complaint for investigation, as is outlined in its complaints policy.

Complaint handling conclusion

  1. The evidence shows there was a significant delay in responding to complaint A at stage 2. In addition, the level of compensation offered by the landlord because of the delay was not sufficient to put right the impact its failing had caused. These failing lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. To acknowledge the impact on the resident, additional compensation of £100 has been ordered. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £450.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property upon moving in.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Pay a total of £1,650 compensation to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £1,260 compensation. The landlord should deduct this amount upon providing evidence it has already been paid. The compensation is made up as follows:
      1. £1,000 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures in respect of its response to the resident’s reports damp and mould.
      2. £200 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures in response to the resident’s concerns about the property upon moving in.
      3. £450 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The Ombudsman is ordering a further £390 compensation.

  1. The landlord will identify any works still outstanding in respect of damp and mould and provide a schedule for these to begin, no later than 4 weeks following the inspection date.