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 (202424420)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424420

Islington Council

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of a pest infestation.
    3. A request to be rehomed.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom maisonette on the ground floor. She lives with her son and both have complex vulnerabilities, known to the landlord.
  2. On 19 August 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that she had damp and mould in the property. She said she also had a mite infestation and was unable to stay at the property until the matter was resolved.
  3. The landlord carried out pest control at the property on 4 September 2024. On 11 September it carried out a damp and mould survey, which concluded there was no damp and mould at the property.
  4. The resident formally complained to the landlord on 13 September 2024. She said she had a reoccurring issue every year with damp and mould, and mould mites, and the landlord had not rectified the underlying cause of the problem.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 October 2024. It said its inspections had revealed the was no damp and mould, or mites, at the property. The landlord acknowledged there was an outstanding repair to the balcony from a previous damp survey and offered the resident £328.28 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 October 2024 and said she wanted to move as the issues in the property were reoccurring. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 1 November 2024 and apologised for the issues the resident had experienced. The landlord said a further inspection had been carried out by a diagnostic surveyor who reported that while there was one “low wet” reading in the hallway it required no remedial works. It offered the resident a further £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident requested a property move as a solution to the issues she was experiencing. She specifically asked the landlord to allocate her more points in order to secure a higher priority under its housing allocations scheme.
  3. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
  4. Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 legislates the allocation of social housing and how local authorities deal with the assessment of such applications, the award of points and banding. Complaints about how a local authority has handled these issues fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  5. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehomed is therefore out of jurisdiction because the complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. The resident is advised to approach the LGSCO regarding this issue if she wishes to pursue her complaint further.

Scope of investigation

  1. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. In her correspondence with us, the resident states the issues have been recurring since her tenancy began in 2020. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 13 September 2023 to 7 October 2024. This being 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties due to the passage of time and availability of evidence.
  3. The resident has told us how the issues have impacted on her health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Damp and mould

  1. On 2 November 2023 the resident reported to the landlord she had damp and mould in her property. She said her son had asthma and she did not wish to stay at the property. Due to pest infestation treatment being carried out on that day, the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 14 November 2023. It reported there was no sign of damp and mould in the property.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the internal structure of the property. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure, states if a new damp inspection is raised it will carry out an inspection within 20 working days. The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy.
  3. On 9 January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord there was severe mould visible on the windows of her property. The landlord attended the property 6 days later to carry out a mould wash. The landlord’s notes recorded there was no mould on the inside of the windows. It advised the resident it did not apply mould wash to the outside of the windows and the job was closed down.
  4. The tenancy handbook sets out the obligations of the landlord and the resident. It states the resident is responsible for keeping the property clean and tidy, both internally and externally. Based on this, it was reasonable of the landlord not to clean the outside of the resident’s windows as it was the responsibility of the resident.
  5. On 22 February 2024 the resident reported to the landlord there was damp and mould under the stairs. It is unclear whether the resident was still in temporary accommodation at this time. The landlord visited the property on 14 March 2024 and completed a survey. It noted a light mould stain under the stairs that may have been caused by surface condensation being trapped in a small space. The landlord advised the resident to ventilate the area and monitor it for a few weeks. The landlord’s repairs policy states when condensation is the cause of dampness, it will provide the tenant with advice on how to manage the situation.
  6. The landlord’s notes recorded that repairs were needed to eliminate the presence of damp in other rooms of the property. These were:
    1. Rake out and repoint the brickwork on the rear elevation.
    2. Repair blistered asphalt on the balcony.
    3. Rub down and apply stain block to bedroom. This was completed on 10 April 2024.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days. The repair to the bedroom wall was completed in line with its policy. The landlord’s notes suggest an operative attended the property on 16 April 2024 and identified that scaffolding would be required to complete the remaining repairs.
  8. The landlord carried out a follow up inspection at the property on 11 September 2024 to assess the damp and mould under the stairs. The landlord noted there was no damp and mould present, and no further action was required.
  9. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord met with her on 26 September 2024 and agreed to arrange for an independent survey to inspect the property for damp and mould. Its stage 1 response 5 days later confirmed a further survey would take place. However, it said the repair to the balcony was the only thing outstanding and it would arrange for this to be completed. This was misleading as the landlord’s survey in March 2024 had also identified repointing work was needed to prevent further damp in the bedroom. It also demonstrates a breakdown in communication between the landlord’s internal teams.
  10. The landlord did offer the resident compensation for the delays in the repair to the balcony. The response stated it would offer £328.28, made up of £50 for inconvenience and “£333.38 length of time taken to complete repair since March 2024 – October 2024 (£41.66 x 4 months)”. The landlord did not explain how and on what basis it calculated its compensation award.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 October 2024. She stated she had a vulnerable child, and the impact of living in the property was making them both ill. Following this, the landlord carried out 2 further visits to the property:
    1. 10 October 2024 the landlord recorded a “low wet” reading at the bottom of stairs that required no remedial work.
    2. 24 October 2024 the landlord recorded no signs of damp and mould in the kitchen but there was a smell present. It recommended a dehumidifier was used for 2 to 4 weeks to remove any excess moisture from the air.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 1 November 2024 apologised for the issues the resident had been experiencing and acknowledged its recent visits had recorded no damp and mould within the property that required it to undertake works. It offered the resident a further £150 for distress. The response failed to acknowledge the outstanding repairs to the repointing and balcony or explain why these repairs were no longer needed.
  13. The landlord completed 2 further inspections of the property on 21 and 26 November 2024, which involved 2 surveyors on each visit. Both visits recorded there was no evidence of damp and mould within the property.
  14. The landlord has since told us that the repointing work is scheduled to take place in May 2025. It also stated it had no record of any work due to take place to the balcony.
  15. In summary, the landlord’s initial responses to the resident’s reports of damp and mould were in line with its policy and its follow up surveys confirmed the issue had been successfully resolved. However, the repairs identified during the survey in March 2024, to prevent damp returning to the bedroom, remain outstanding 14 months later. If the landlord has decided the work to the balcony was no longer necessary, this was not communicated to the resident.
  16. The unexplained delays to the damp prevention works lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £550 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have a significant effect on the resident.

Pest infestation

  1. On 30 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord she had a pest infestation of mould mites. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 2 November 2023 to treat the infestation and arranged a follow up visit to take place. The resident was decanted to temporary accommodation until the course of treatment had been completed.
  2. The landlord’s pest control procedure sets out the kinds of pests it can treat. This does not include mould mites. The procedure states it will attend reports of infection within 3 working days and carry out treatment. The landlord responded to the report quickly, line with its policy, despite needing to appoint a specialist contractor.
  3. During an unrelated survey at the property on 7 November 2023, the landlord recorded there were “a lot of mites” in the kitchen and it was unsure whether they were mould mites or similar. The landlord’s contractor completed a second treatment at the property on 22 November 2023 and arranged for a deep clean to take place before the resident returned to the property.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 15 December 2023 to carry out the deep clean. The resident refused the clean as she wanted steam cleaners to be used, as she believed they would be more effective. The landlord arranged for a steam clean to take place at the property on 30 January 2024. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take. During this time the landlord extended the resident’s temporary accommodation. It is not clear when the resident returned to her property.
  5. On 19 August 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the infestation had returned, and she was unable to stay at the property due to her son’s medical conditions. The landlord arranged for the resident to be decanted from the property the same day and raised a job for its contractor to treat the property. The landlord’s contractor completed the treatment on 4 September 2024.
  6. On 30 August 2024 the resident provided the landlord with a hospital letter that set out the medical issues her son suffered with. This included a number of allergies, which included mites. The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. HHSRS identifies pests as a hazard that can pose risks to health, such as infections, allergies, and food contamination.
  7. During a damp and mould survey at the property on 11 September 2024, the resident showed the landlord white specs on the cooker and extractor hood, which she believed were mould mites. The landlord’s records noted the specs were too small to distinguish what they were with the naked eye. The resident made her formal complaint 2 days later.
  8. The landlord met with the resident on 24 September 2024 and agreed to arrange for a different surveyor to attend the property to investigate the possible infestation in her kitchen. However, in its stage 1 response 5 days later, the landlord said there had been no sign of an infestation during its visit to the property to September and no further works were identified. Given the landlord’s undertaking to arrange an independent surveyor 5 days earlier, its response was unreasonable as it did not reflect the commitment it had recently made.
  9. On 7 October 2024 the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. She stated a further surveyor visit had been agreed and she had also been informed by her tenancy officer that a further visit from pest control would take place, and the situation would be monitored.
  10. The landlord carried out 2 further inspections of the resident’s property on 10 and 24 October 2024. While the first inspection revealed no evidence of an infestation, the second visit recorded the presence of mould mites on the cooker and recommended a further treatment from pest control and a steam clean of the affected room.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 1 November 2024, advised that treatment had been carried out at the property in September 2024 and no mould mites were found. The landlord advised the resident she could control the situation by regular cleaning and controlling ventilation and humidity. The response contradicted the landlord’s own records from a week previous when an infestation was recorded. The conflicting information received by the resident demonstrates a breakdown of communication between the landlord internal teams, which has added to the distress experienced by the resident.
  12. Following the stage 2 response the landlord agreed to fully investigate the issue by appointing a specialist contractor to take samples from the affected area and ascertain the root cause of the reoccurring infestations. This action was only committed to by the landlord after several requests from the resident asking for the matter to be resolved.
  13. The pest control contractor attended the property on 7 February 2025 to take samples. On 14 March 2025 the contractor identified the pest as owl midges and said the continued presence in a property was indicative of drainage problems. The contractor said the source of the infestation needed to be removed and recommended:
    1. The drainage system was flushed.
    2. The kitchen extractor fan was repaired or replaced to remove excess moisture from the kitchen.
  14. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s first report of pest infestation in October 2023 was appropriate. It acted in line with its policies and met tight time scales despite having to appoint a specialist contractor. The landlord also acted swiftly to decant the resident and her son.
  15. However, its response to her further report in August 2024 was less effective. While it acted quickly to decant the resident, the evidence shows it mismanaged its response by giving conflicting accounts to the resident as to what it was doing in response to her reports. Given the recurring nature of the issue and the additional risks of pest hazard for the resident’s son, the landlord has not evidenced it has provided a resolution to her complaint by either conducting effective pest control procedures.
  16. These cumulative failings lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £400 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehomed is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £950 compensation (inclusive of any compensation already paid), made up of:
      1. £550 for its failings in handling reports of damp and mould.
      2. £400 for its failings in handling reports of a pest infestation.
    3. Provide us and the resident with a schedule and timescale for the outstanding works, namely repointing of brickwork and the balcony repair, or provide evidence to support the repairs are no longer needed.
    4. Provide us and the resident with a schedule of how it proposes to remedy the identified infestation. The plan should include the works required and the timescales it will complete them.
  2. The landlord must reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.