London Borough of Islington (202410898)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410898

Islington Council

05 June 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 of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs.

Background

2. The resident has lived in a one bedroom, top floor flat under a secure tenancy since 27 September 2004. The landlord is a local council.
3. In April 2023 the resident started reporting leaks in several locations in his flat to the landlord. He said every time it rained water would come through the ceiling and walls and was starting to cause damp and mould. It responded by organising inspections of both the building roof and his flat.
4. The landlord identified several issues with the building roof. These included problems with it being flat, and with a metal walkway and grate located on the roof directly over the resident’s flat. The walkway and grate made a full inspection of the roof difficult and also seemed to be retaining water. Inspections of the flat found there were water leaks coming from the roof, causing water stains on the ceiling, damp plaster on the walls and some areas of mould.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 December 2023. He said he was still experiencing leaks every time it rained and the damp and mould was getting worse. He said despite the landlord completing several visits and surveys it had not resolved the problem. He also explained how the issue was affecting his health and mental wellbeing. He wanted the repairs to be completed, for it to replace the flooring throughout his property, and compensation for the impact to him and for damage to his belongings.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 December 2023. It recognised there had been delays completing repairs to the roof. It said this was due to the works being passed from an in-house team to an external contractor in August 2023. It said the roof works had now been completed but acknowledged this had then delayed works to the flat. It apologised, said internal works would start shortly and offered the resident a total of £450 compensation.
7. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 February 2024. He said he was still experiencing leaks and the damp and mould in his flat was not improving. He highlighted that the issue was affecting his mental health and that he had fallen over in the flat several times due to water on the stairs and his mobility issues. He also said heating the flat was expensive due to the damp. He asked again for works to be completed and for compensation for damage to his personal belongings and heating costs.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 April 2024. It agreed that there had been delays in getting repairs completed. It apologised, said works to fix the damp and mould in his flat had been approved and would start shortly. It offered him a total of £1159 compensation.
9. The resident remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to the Service in June 2024. He said the landlord had still not completed all the outstanding repairs and his property was still damp and had mould. He wanted the landlord to complete all the repairs to fully rectify the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The evidence shows that the resident appointed a solicitor who issued the landlord it with a letter of claim on 15 May 2024 to start the pre action protocol of a housing claim. This was due to the ongoing reports of leaks, damp and mould in his property. On 4 September 2024 the landlord settled with the resident out of court and promised to complete all necessary works in the following 4 months. It also paid him £1300 in damages and £5250 in legal costs.
11. This investigation will investigate the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould up to the end of the complaints process on 10 April 2024.. However, the pre-action protocol is not part of the complaints process, and the landlord’s subsequent actions in light of it will not be considered in this report. If the resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs listed in the protocol he has the option of proceeding to legal action. Alternatively, he could potentially raise a new complaint with the landlord about his concerns, which he can then bring to the Ombudsman if his concerns are unresolved following the landlord’s complaint responses.
12. The resident has complained that the landlord’s failure rectify the leaks, damp and mould in his property has impacted his health. Although the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience of the situation on the resident, the Service is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs

13. The terms of the resident’s occupancy agreement state the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the building roof, as well as the drains and guttering. The landlord’s repairs guide says it puts repairs into four categories; urgent, recall, routine and planned. The timeframe it gives to attend repairs range from within 24 hours (for urgent repairs) to within 60 working days (for planned works).
14. In both the resident’s complaint and escalation request, he said he was experiencing leaks in his property following rainfall. He said the leaks started in May 2023 following the landlord carrying out some works to the building roof. He said the leaks were causing significant damage to the ceilings and walls in multiple rooms in his flat and had led to damp and mould growth. He highlighted that while the landlord had sent staff round to inspect both his property and the roof it had either not taken any action, or any repairs it had completed were not satisfactory.
15. In both its complaint responses, the landlord said it had taken steps to rectify the leaks, damp and mould. This included completing inspections of the roof and his flat, completing repairs to the roof and putting together a schedule of works for the repairs to his flat. However, it acknowledged there had been delays in completing repairs to the roof which had then caused delays to repairs within his property. At stage 1 it said these delays had been caused by changes to who would complete the repairs, from an internal team to an external contractor.
16. When the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 he said any repairs that had been completed to the roof had not worked. He also said he was still waiting on repairs to his property. In response, the landlord agreed and acknowledged  the leaks, damp and mould were significantly affecting his home. It noted that it had offered him a decant in April 2024 but he had refused. Nevertheless, it apologised, agreed to do the necessary repairs and offered him a total of £1159 compensation, comprising of:
    1. £459 for delays in resolving the repair (calculated as £41.66 for each of the 11 months the issue had gone on for)
    2. £250 for distress caused.
    3. £250 for inconvenience caused
    4. £200 for time and trouble.
17. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its repair and investigation delays and their impact on the resident and his home, because the evidence shows significant failings in its handling of his reports. These included the large number of inspections it undertook in 2023 and 2024 to identify the cause of the leaks; 3 of the roof, and at least 5 in the property. All the internal inspections identified the same root cause of the leaks and subsequent damp and mould. They also identified similar remedial work. Why multiple inspections in the face of the same results were required is not clear from the evidence.
18. Despite the inspections in 2023, there is no evidence of the landlord doing interim work in the property until March 2024, when it did a mould wash and redecorated ceilings and walls.
19. The evidence also shows the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. It did not update him after any of its inspections, and some appointments were cancelled without advising him.
20. There seems to be no denying that the underlying problems causing the leaks and damp were complicated. Roof leaks can be difficult to resolve quickly due to their scale and circumstances, shown in this case by the presence of a large walkway partially obstructing access and potentially contributing to the problem itself. The landlord did not meet its own timescale of completing repairs within a maximum of 60 working days, but due to the complex nature of the issue this is not necessarily a failing. Nonetheless, there were also clear failings in the landlord’s handling and its communication.
21. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged its poor handling had caused delays and had subsequently significantly impacted the resident. It also recognised he had been more affected by its failings than might otherwise be the case due to his vulnerabilities, and had missed opportunities to provide additional support. It acknowledged its communication with him was poor, and explained why and how the delays had occurred. It apologised, and set out its plans to continue working to resolve the problems, which was appropriate given they had not yet been fully resolved despite its efforts. These were appropriate remedies for the landlord to offer to resolve the complaint, and were in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
22. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £1159. That was a significant amount and reflected its appreciation of the impact of its failings on him and his home. It was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint in which there have been serious failings and an equally serious impact on a resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer it in these circumstances.
23. Overall, the evidence shows that while identifying the cause of the leak was complicated, there were failings in the landlord’s handling and communications with the resident. It also shows that he explained on several occasions to the landlord the significant impact on him. In its responses to his complaint the landlord acknowledged its failings and their impact. It then provided a range of remedies which were appropriate and proportionate to their scale and nature.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

25. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the resident the £1159 compensation it offered at Stage 2.