London Borough of Islington (202418604)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418604

Islington Council

16 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to transfer to another property.
2. Concerns about damp and mould within the property.
3. Reports for it to carry out repairs to the windows and doors.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident suffers with a number of physical and mental health related conditions. These include asthma, as well as other lung and heart related conditions. The resident has a 10-month-old child who has suffered with eczema, bronchiolitis, and respiratory infections since birth. The landlord is aware of their vulnerabilities.
On 27 November 2023 the resident reported there were draughts coming through the windows at the property. She said the draughts were making her health conditions worse and she had been struggling to breathe. The resident was pregnant. She was admitted to hospital regarding her health conditions on 4 December 2023.
On 6 December 2023 the landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property. The contractor said there was no evidence of a leak at the resident’s property, or at her neighbour’s flat above.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord’s surveyor carried out a damp and mould inspection at the property. The surveyor said:
1. Damp meter readings evidenced the walls were dry.
2. The damp at the property was being caused by condensation.
3. There was mist on all of the windows and on the glass in the front door.
4. There was damp and mould on the wooden frames and sills of the windows in the bathroom, living room, kitchen, and the bedroom.
Between December 2023 and January 2024 the landlord carried out a 3-stage mould wash to the windows and door at the resident’s property. It also renewed the door brush under the front door to prevent further draughts coming through the gap underneath the door.
In January 2024 the resident said she still had issues with damp and mould at the property. She said the landlord’s surveyor had told her the landlord would be able to install double glazed windows, which would reduce the damp at the property. The landlord carried out an inspection of the windows at the resident’s property on 1 February 2024. The landlord said the windows were in a good condition.
On 5 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould, and the draught coming through the windows at her property. The resident said she had been in hospital for 3 weeks and the landlord had not contacted her during that time, as it had previously agreed to do.
The resident said the landlord had visited the property a number of times following her reports. The resident said the landlord’s contractors had told her the window frames were old, wooden, single glazed units and needed to be replaced. She asked the landlord to carry out these works.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 February 2024. The landlord said its surveyor’s report did not state the windows needed to be replaced. The landlord said it had carried out a mould wash, treated and painted the windows and the front door at the property. It also fitted a new draught brush to the bottom of the front door.
The landlord agreed to carry out a further damp and mould assessment at the resident’s property. It said this assessment would consider whether it could install air vents and extractor fans at the property. The landlord awarded the resident £50 for its delay in communicating with the resident about the repairs.

Between February 2024 and April 2024 the landlord:
1. Advised the resident how to submit her application to transfer to another property.
2. Carried out a mould wash and applied 2 coats of anti mould paint to the windows in the bedroom, living room, and kitchen.
3. Completed a 3-stage mould treatment to the external wall in the living room and wiped down the kitchen wall with an anti mould solution.
4. Carried out another damp and mould assessment which identified:
  1. The external window walls had raised moisture levels.
  2. There were water drops on the single glazed windows and timber frame sills.
  3. There were no vents on the cupboard doors where the resident had said she had mould growth on her clothes.
5. Carried out a further inspection of the windows. The landlord’s contractor said there was extreme levels of condensation on all of the glazed units throughout the property. It fitted spinner vents to the bathroom and the living room windows.
6. Installed 3 air vents in the cupboards in the bedroom and installed 1 air vent in the hallway.
On 29 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaints. She said that she had followed the landlord’s advice about keeping the property ventilated. The resident said there was still severe condensation, and she had mould growing on her furniture and personal belongings, including her baby items. The resident said she was carrying out a mould wash every 1 – 2 weeks but the mould kept coming back. She said the landlord initially told her it would install double glazed windows, but it had not done this.
The resident said she wanted the landlord to increase its compensation to take into consideration the damage caused by the damp and mould to her belongings which she had replaced. She also wanted the landlord to transfer her to another property that did not have issues with damp and mould.
In May 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. It recommended installing extractor fans in the living room, bathroom, and kitchen.
On 29 May 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord increased its award of compensation to £300 which it said was for time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also said:
1. It would arrange to install the extractor fans as per its surveyor’s recommendations.
2. The resident’s property was not uninhabitable and so it would not consider a management transfer.
3. Advised the resident how it could submit a claim to its liability insurer for any damage caused to her personal belongings.
On 3 July 2024 the resident chased the landlord to install the extractor fans at her property. The landlord completed these works on 29 August 2024.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating that she wanted the landlord to resolve the issues with the damp and mould at her property. The resident has said that there is still condensation on all of the windows, and she still has mould presenting around the windows, and on items of furniture. She is also seeking compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of these repairs.
The landlord has updated the Ombudsman that it has since installed sensors that detect moisture levels at the property. The landlord said the readings have been within acceptable and ideal levels.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

The resident’s request to transfer to another property.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.k. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about her request to transfer to another property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.k. says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall more properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman or other dispute resolution service.
This aspect of the resident’s complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because the resident’s landlord is a local authority, and the resident’s request for it to assist her in transferring her to another property is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider and it is instead within the LGSCO’s remit. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint may not be considered by the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, then she can contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Scope of Investigation

Section 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
We have taken into consideration that the resident has said she has continued to have issues with damp and mould within her property after the landlord’s final response to her complaint on 29 May 2024. We have seen evidence that the resident made further reports of damp and mould at the property in November 2024. She then raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her further reports in December 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s further complaint on 27 January 2025.
However, there is no evidence to show that this new complaint was escalated to stage 2 and therefore has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. If the resident wishes to escalate this further complaint, she can contact the landlord, and she may be able to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
Therefore, in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme we have considered the period 12 months prior to the resident’s complaints raised on 5 February 2024, until the landlord’s final response to her complaints on 29 May 2024. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of any repairs it agreed to carry out within its final response.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that we may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.

As part of her complaint, the resident has said that her health, and her child’s health has been affected by the presence of damp and mould within her home. We acknowledge what the resident has said. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health, and the health of her child.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs handbook states the landlord is responsible for external window frames and sills. It also sets out a number of categories as to how the landlord will respond to repairs. This includes the following:
1. Emergency – This is where there is an immediate danger to a person, or serious risk of damage to the property. Its contractor will respond within 2 hours and make the repair safe.
2. Urgent – This is where the repair affects a resident’s day-to-day living. Its contractor will respond within 24 hours.
3. Routine – This is for repairs that need to be completed before the next scheduled programme of works. It states it will make contact within 20 working days and provide the resident with an appointment.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond, at either stage. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that this policy does not apply to damages to property or personal items as this should be covered by a liability insurance claim, or by a resident’s home contents insurance policy.

The resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.

On 27 November 2023, the resident reported that the draughts coming through the windows at the property were making her health conditions worse, and she was admitted to hospital a week later. Between 6 December 2023 and 7 December 2023 the landlord completed an inspection, and a damp and mould survey at the property. The inspection did not identify any leaks, and it reported the walls were dry. The survey said the windows in the property were misted and there was damp and mould on the frames and sills. The landlord carried out the works identified in the survey. It completed a mould wash and treatment of the affected windows 12 working days later, on 27 December 2023. The landlord carried out a proportionate investigation by seeking to find a cause for the damp and mould at the resident’s property. It also carried out works within a reasonable timescale in line with its repairs policy as this would have been considered to be a routine repair which the landlord states it will complete within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, on 19 February 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states it will provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days after it has acknowledged a complaint.
It was right the landlord apologised for its delay in contacting the resident about the repairs when she had been admitted into hospital. We expect a landlord to contact residents within the timescales it agrees. We understand that this delay in communication about these repairs caused the resident, who is vulnerable, distress and inconvenience.
The landlord agreed to carry out a further assessment of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. It said this would include whether it should install another extractor fan and install air vents at the property. We have not seen any evidence of the communication the resident had with the landlord’s operative about these further recommendations before 5 February 2024. Therefore, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of that communication with her at that time. However, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to include this as part of its further damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property.

Between 23 February 2024 and April 2024, the landlord carried out mould washes and installed vents in the property. The landlord’s response was reasonable because it is accepted that sometimes, these types of works it can take more than one attempt to fully resolve damp and mould and it may be necessary to attempt a repair and then consider further repairs if the first repair does not resolve the issue. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord continued to communicate with the resident whilst seeking to address the damp and mould within the property.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaints on 29 April 2024. She described that she was 8 months pregnant and was carrying out mould washes herself every 2 weeks. The resident described that she had mould on her furniture, including her clothes and baby items. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaints the next day. It then provided its final response 19 working days later, on 29 May 2024. This was appropriate because it was in line with its complaints policy as referred to above, which states it will respond to a resident’s stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints, it advised her that she should contact her contents insurer about the damage to her belongings caused by the damp and mould. The landlord also provided the details of its liability insurer if she wanted to make a claim if she believed that the damage to her belongings had happened due to its negligence in handling the repairs. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord, and we would therefore not comment on the likely outcome of such an insurance claim if one is made. However, it was appropriate the landlord communicated that this option was available to the resident. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing such claims and the landlord would not be expected to pay for the resident’s possessions itself, outside the insurance process.
The landlord said that it had carried out a further survey of the resident’s property on 2 May 2024. This survey recommended the landlord installed extractor fans in the bathroom, living room, and bedroom. The landlord agreed to complete these works in its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord’s contractor submitted a quote to complete these works on 3 July 2024. The landlord completed these works on 29 August 2024. This was 83 working days after the works were recommended. This delay was not appropriate as this should have been completed as a routine repair within 20 working days. If the landlord needed more time to complete this repair, it should have kept the resident informed. Records show that the resident was chasing the repair during this time which we understand will have caused her distress and inconvenience at a time when she had a newborn child.
There is evidence of failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident, as mentioned above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £300 compensation within its final response for this aspect of her complaint on 29 May 2024. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. We have also taken into consideration the landlord’s delay in fitting the extractor fans in the resident’s property, which occurred after the landlord’s final response. Overall, we consider the £300 awarded by the landlord to have been within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact. In this case, there was distress and inconvenience due to the delays, but the repairs were ultimately completed, so there was no permanent impact.
Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
The resident has said that the property still suffers with damp and mould, including around the windows and on her personal belongings. The landlord has said the moisture levels are within an acceptable level. We will make a recommendation for the landlord to consider arranging for an independent survey to be carried out of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. It should share the findings of this survey with the resident. The landlord should then set out any schedule of works it is responsible for, which it should also share with the resident and should complete within a reasonable timescale, in line with industry best practice and the timescales in its repairs policy.

The resident’s reports for it to carry out repairs to the windows and doors.

On 27 November 2023 the resident reported there were draughts coming through the windows and front door at the property. The landlord renewed the door brush under the front door 4 working days later, on 1 December 2023. It then carried out an inspection of the windows at the property 8 working days later, on 7 December 2023. This was an appropriate response by the landlord because these would have been considered as routine repairs which it states it will complete within 20 working days.

On 8 January 2024 the resident said that she had been advised by the surveyor who visited her property in December 2023, that the landlord needed to replace the 6 windows in her property with double glazing. We acknowledge the resident’s testimony, However, there is a lack of independent evidence to support the account made by the resident as to what the surveyor said to her during this visit to her property. Therefore, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. However, it was appropriate the landlord communicated in its stage 1 complaint response on 19 February 2024 that the surveyor’s report did not recommend that all of the windows at the property needed to be replaced. The landlord was entitled to follow the advice in the surveyor’s report, and it would not be obliged to replace all the windows on the basis that the surveyor had told the resident they should be replaced.
The landlord agreed for its contractor to carry out another inspection of the resident’s windows and front door because of what the resident had said the previous surveyor had told her. The contractor attended on 1 February 2024 and said the windows were in a ‘good condition’. It was reasonable the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns by requesting its contractor carry out this further inspection to ascertain if the windows needed to be replaced.
Records show the landlord’s contractor carried out a further inspection of the windows at the resident’s property on 28 February 2024. This was after the resident chased the landlord about when it would carry out works to the windows. During this second inspection the contractor said there was severe condensation on all ‘double glazed windows’ at the property. The contractor recommended for the landlord to install spinner vents to the windows in the bathroom, and living room windows. These works were carried out on 28 March 2024. It was right the landlord carried out a further inspection in response to the resident’s continued concerns, and that it completed the follow-on works in an attempt to address the condensation inside the resident’s property.
On 2 May 2024, the landlord’s surveyor carried out a damp and mould inspection. The surveyor said that all the windows at the property were ‘single glazed’. The surveyor said the ‘single glazed windows’ were the most likely cause of the continued severe condensation inside the resident’s property. We have also seen an inspection report from December 2024 which describe the windows as being a mixture of ‘single glazed’ and ‘slim double glazed’. These surveys did not make any recommendations for the landlord to replace the windows at the property.

The landlord’s surveys and repair logs about whether the resident’s windows are ‘double glazed’ or ‘single glazed’ are inconsistent. The resident has also said she has been given differing accounts of what types of glazing the windows are at the property. We understand the landlord’s inconsistency has added to the resident’s confusion, as well as the distress and inconvenience she has experienced as a result of this aspect of her complaint.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints on 29 May 2024, the landlord said its planned works for the replacement of the resident’s windows would be in the financial year of 2027 to 2028, subject to the condition of the windows. The landlord provided this information 99 working days after it agreed to confirm this to the resident, on 8 January 2024. The landlord should have provided this information within 10 working days. If it needed longer to confirm this information, it should have said this to the resident. This is evidence of poor communication.
The resident reported to the landlord that she has still suffered with severe condensation at the property following the installation of the spinner vents. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to appoint an independent survey of the resident’s windows and front door at the property. This inspection is to include what type of windows are at the resident’s property, and what impact the windows are having on the condensation, damp, and mould within the property. This independent survey is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. If the independent survey recommends any follow-on works to the windows, and front door, these works are to then be carried out within the landlord’s published timescales for repairs. If the windows are to be replaced, this should be completed within a further 12 weeks from the date of the survey.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports for it to carry out repairs to the windows and doors.
In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord is to pay the resident £200 compensation. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and its action to put things right did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.k. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to transfer to another property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports for it to carry out repairs to the windows and doors.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. This apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the service failure in which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s reports for it to carry out repairs to the windows and doors.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £200 for its service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports for it to carry out repairs to the windows and doors.
The landlord is to pay the resident the £300 it awarded the resident in its final complaint response unless this has already been paid.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord is to arrange for an independent survey of the resident’s windows and front door at the property within 28 days of this report. This inspection is to include:
1. What type of windows are at the resident’s property.
2. The impact the windows are having on the excessive condensation, damp, and mould within the property.
3. Details of any repairs needed to the windows/an opinion concerning whether the windows need to be replaced.

This independent survey is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. If the independent survey recommends any follow-on works to the windows, and front door, these works are to then be carried out within the landlord’s published timescales for repairs. If the windows are to be replaced, this should be completed within a further 12 weeks from the date of the survey.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider arranging for an independent survey to be carried out of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. It should share the findings of this survey with the resident. The landlord should then set out any schedule of works it is responsible for, which it should also share with the resident and should complete within a reasonable timescale, in line with industry best practice.