London Borough of Newham (202414895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414895

London Borough of Newham

28 March 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damp and mould in the bedroom.
2. The windows
3. The kitchen
4. Issues with drainage
5. The front door
6. Cracks in the ceiling in the front room and door.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 11 January 2016. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord said it had been informed that the resident and her household were vulnerable during the complaint process. The landlord told this Service that it contacted the resident for further information so it could update its records.
On 9 November 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
1. She had been reporting repairs since 2016 and due to covid they had not been carried out.
2. She had damp and mould in her son’s bedroom. It was on the windows and walls and also furniture in the room.
3. The water works have been an ongoing issue since her tenancy began. The landlord’s contractors had attended numerous times but had given conflicting views on what was causing the issues.
4. Her kitchen was due to be replaced in 2022, but nothing had been done.
5. She had cracks in her property which she felt were due to the building moving. She had reported this, but no one had looked into it.
6. She wanted the works to be completed.
On 30 November 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. In summary it said:
1. It attended on 10 November 2022 and after measuring the glass it had only replaced 1 window despite the works order stating all windows. It apologised that it had not replaced all windows effected by condensation and mould.
2. It had now raised a job for the replacement of the remaining windows with a target date to complete by 2 January 2023.
3. It had raised a job to replace the kitchen cupboards and shelves and the target date to complete was 4 January 2023.
On 9 January 2023, the resident responded but the email in the records provided was blank. She then contacted the landlord again on 21 February 2023 to say that she had not received any contact from the landlord.
The landlord responded to query if she wished to raise a stage 2 complaint. It then raised a stage 2 complaint. It sent the resident an acknowledgement and said it would send its response by 22 March 2023. It then sent a further update on 6 April to say its response was delayed but it was aiming to send its response by 21 April 2023.
On 18 April 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. In summary it said:
1. It was aware that the resident had been reporting issues with the windows since 2016. It had attended each time and repaired the windows. This included replacing the glass. The resident had now advised that the issue had not been resolved and was causing damp and mould.
2. It attended on 19 March 2023 and found that the windows were damaged. It was now in the process of arranging replacement of the windows. It advised that it could take 6 – 8 weeks for the windows to be ordered and fitted.
3. It had found no damp and mould and with regards to the other windows in the property there was not much found. It said the issues should be resolved once the new windows were fitted.
4. It had been unable to find any records of repairs to the kitchen prior to the complaint. An inspection had now been completed, and it agreed the kitchen was damaged. The kitchen is now on the renewal programme to be replaced.
5. It was aware that blockages to the bathroom and kitchen had been reported since 2016. It had attended and repaired but the resident had advised that she was getting conflicting information as to what was causing the issues. A drainage survey was completed on 15 March 2023 and the drains were unblocked on 16 March 2023.
6. In respect of the front door causing a draft it had already added a draught excluder which the resident said had not resolved the issue. It had now raised works to overhaul the door and add the excluder to the stop of the door.
7. It had inspected the cracks in the living room ceiling and door. It was unable to identify whether this was due to the road. It had raised the relevant repairs.
8. It apologised and awarded £450 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £250 for the delay in repairing the windows.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience caused with regards to the other repairs.
  3. £50 for its delay in responding at stage 2.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She said that the issues had continued since 2016. She said that damp and mould still remained in her son’s bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Policies, procedures, guidance and legislation.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for structural repairs. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repair policy was updated in August 2024, so it is unclear exactly what parts of the policy applied to the resident’s complaint period. The policy states that it is responsible to repair external and internal doors, ceilings, external window frames, sills and installations for the supply of water. It will replace kitchen cupboards that are beyond repair but not necessarily to match existing.
The policy states it has 4 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours. Urgent repairs will be completed within 3 to 7 days. Routine repairs will be responded to within 20 working days and planned works within 42 working days.
If the resident fails to provide access for a pre-arranged appointment it will try all contact numbers recorded against the address. If it cannot make contact with the resident a no access missed appointment card will be posted at the address and a note will be made on the landlord’s records. If the resident fails to respond within 7 days, it will try to make contact again. The job will then be cancelled if the resident fails to respond within 7 days.
In respect of damp and mould it will acknowledge service requests made in relation to damp and mould within 48 hours of receiving the request. An inspection will be scheduled within 2 weeks of the initial contact. The timing of the works will depend on the complexity of the issue and the scale of the works to be completed.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it has a 2-stage procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.

Scope of the investigation.

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her family. Its adverse impact on the family’s welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around loss of earnings and any damage to her family’s health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The Service does not dispute that the resident had been raising repair issues since 2016. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2020 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2020 is made in this report to provide context.
The resident has since raised 2 other complaints with her landlord. These have also been escalated to this Service. Her most recent complaint included the front door and drainage again as there were on-going issues. To avoid confusion this investigation will assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the front door and the drainage up until its stage 2 response on 18 April 2023. The period thereafter will be considered in the other investigation. Any orders that may be required to put matters right in relation to the door and drainage will also be considered in the other investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the bedroom.

In November 2022, the records show that damp and mould had been recorded. The records however lack any detail about what the issues were. The records indicate that an inspection was raised but it is unclear whether it went ahead. The records also fail to show what action was taken following any inspection and how the landlord communicated with the resident about this.
The resident then explained that damp and mould was present in her son’s bedroom within her stage 1 complaint request. The landlord was aware that her son had respiratory issues. Yet there are no records to show that it had risk assessed the issue which is a further failing.
The landlord failed to address the damp and mould specifically in its stage 1 complaint response. It focused mainly on the windows. It was not however clear how it had concluded that this was the sole cause of the damp and mould. It could have explained this within its stage 1 complaint response. That it did not was a missed opportunity for it to resolve matters sooner. The landlord also missed a further opportunity in its stage 2 complaint response. It simply said that once the new windows had been fitted the damp and mould should improve.
This response lacked any reassurance that the issue would be resolved. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out how it would monitor progress moving forwards. There was no evidence to show that the landlord had thoroughly investigated the potential causes of damp and mould. The landlord had clearly attended to look at the property as it had concluded that the windows required replacement. The fact that this information was not available in its records is a record keeping failure and a failing in its handling of the matter.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In this particular case the poor record keeping hindered the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the landlord’s handling of the matter. Given the record keeping failing it was also unclear how the landlord had satisfied itself that it had done all that it could within its complaint responses.
The resident was vulnerable as was her household. She had to go to considerable effort to try to get a response from the landlord. When she did receive a response, it was inadequate. The resident had to spend time and effort pursuing her complaint further. She was also left with the worry and uncertainty of when the matter would be resolved.
The resident has informed this Service that there are still ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property despite replacement windows. She said the landlord had recently attended to complete a full property inspection, and this included looking at the damp and mould.
The failings identified above amount to severe maladministration. This is because the landlord has failed to show it had addressed the issue of damp and mould and it is still outstanding. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
Damp and mould in other rooms has been raised as an issue in a later complaint made by the resident. The complaint is also being investigated by this Service. The same order will therefore be made in both cases to ensure that the landlord sets out is position relative to the damp and mould in the property. It will also need to provide an action plan of the steps it will take to resolve the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the window

The repair records show that issues were raised regarding the window. These were all different and included the window not closing, missing keys and the window shaking. The last report being in November 2021. According to the landlord’s records provided in its stage 2 response there are notes stating that a crack in the window was repaired in January 2022. There is then a gap in the records of 9 months. This was when the issue of condensation was first reported in October 2022. This Service acknowledges the resident’s frustration in relation to the windows. However, given the gaps and the fact that the issues raised were not the same this Service will only consider the issues from October 2022.
The job raised in October 2022 reporting condensation had been raised on a 20-day attendance. The records do not show what action the landlord took. The records state that on the same date (10 October 2022) a job had been raised to repair the windows. It is not clear what action the landlord took if any in response. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show how it communicated with the resident about the issues.
Record keeping is core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Furthermore, it enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint states that it attended on 10 November 2022. This was 24 working days after the job had been raised. This was outside of its own timescale. The landlord provided no explanation for its delay in its complaint response. It said it mistakenly only measured up for the replacement of 1 window despite the work order including all of the windows. The records provided do not support the landlord’s version of events.
The landlord also failed to provide any details as to what it would now do to resolve the matter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out the next steps to get the repair resolved within its response. That it did not was a missed opportunity to resolve matters earlier and a further failing.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had replaced the glass, but this had not made a difference. Its explanation that it would aim to repair in the first instance was reasonable. It said that it had attended again in March 2023 and concluded the windows were damaged. It had ordered replacement windows, and it set out an estimated time frame for this to be completed. The repair records provided to this Service again fail to confirm the landlord’s version of events. The resident has since informed this Service that the windows were replaced after the stage 2 response.
The lack of records showing what it did and how it communicated with the resident means that this Service cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of the issue with the windows. This is a failing in its record keeping and has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue her matter further.
This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. The landlord did however acknowledge its failings. Although its records did not evidence its version. It sought to put matters right by offering £250 for the delay and the distress caused.
The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and duration of the issue. This Service has therefore determined reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the windows.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen.

The resident said that her kitchen was due to be replaced in 2022, but it had not. The landlord’s stage 1 response was silent in respect of its handling of the matter. There are no records to show what communication the landlord had had with the resident about the kitchen leading up to her complaint.
The records show that a job was raised to repair the kitchen cupboards and shelves in October 2022. The records however fail to evidence what it did. The stage 1 response also fails to investigate the issue. It states that an appointment had now been raised to replace the kitchen cupboards and shelves.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it changed its position from repairing to arranging full replacement of the kitchen in its planned programme. It provided further detail as it had then completed an inspection of the kitchen. Its finding that it had no records of the repairs raised prior to the complaint was incorrect and contradicted its own records. This was confusing and a failing. The landlord did seek to put matters right and agreed to renew the kitchen. This was appropriate. This Service has since been informed that the kitchen replacement was completed in October 2023.
The lack of records provided meant that this Service has been unable to fully investigate the issue. The resident had obviously reported issues with the kitchen on or before October 2023. The landlord had failed to show that it had done all it could to investigate and resolve the matter. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that it had communicated with the resident about the matter.
In summary the failings found above amount to maladministration. Evidence of poor communication and record keeping has been a feature seen throughout the investigation as already detailed above. Some of the key areas that demonstrate this are missing repair records and lack of detailed records. There is also no evidence seen by this Service that the landlord communicated with the resident about the repair. The landlord then demonstrates further poor communication in the formal complaint responses that again could have provided it an opportunity to clearly set out its position.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the issues with drainage.

This Service does not dispute the resident’s comments that the issue has been going on since 2016. This Service has already explained above how far back it will investigate given the lapse of time. The records clearly show that blocked drains, sinks and toilets had been reported on 3 occasions both in 2020 and 2021. Further reports were made again in February and May in 2022. Then in October 2022 the notes state a CCTV survey was recommended.
The repair records fail to provide any detail as to what action the landlord took and when. There are no records to show that it had kept the resident informed. This has been a continuous finding throughout this investigation. The landlord then missed an opportunity to address the issue within its stage 1 complaint response.
Its stage 2 response fails to investigate its handling of the matter. The resident had said she was given conflicting information by the landlord. The complaint response would have been an opportunity for the landlord to provide clarity. That it did not was a further failing. The landlord said that it had unblocked and resolved the drainage issue following a drainage survey in March 2023. This was appropriate and the records provided do confirm this.
In summary the failings above amount to maladministration. This Service has been unable to fully assess the landlord’s handling of the issue due to its poor record keeping. This failing has been a continuous finding throughout the investigation.
The landlord did consider how it could put matters right in its stage 2 response. It offered £150 for the inconvenience caused for its handling of all of the repairs except the windows. It did not provide a breakdown of how it had reached this figure. When considering an appropriate amount for its handling of the drainage issues the amount of £150 does not reflect the detriment caused. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable but also failed to show that it had considered this.
The issues with the drains had been reported intermittently over a period of 3 years. The landlord has not evidenced that it had done all it could to get matters resolved. This Service acknowledges that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues, and it can be difficult to identity causes. This is why it is important that the landlord keeps a clear audit trail of what it has done.
The resident has not only had to live with the uncertainty of when it will be resolved but she has had to spend considerable time and effort pursuing her complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the front door.

The landlord failed to address this issue in its stage 1 response. It is unclear however when the resident raised her concerns about the door during the complaint process. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had added an excluder to assist with the draft previously. The landlord also said that it had inspected in March 2023, and it had booked in repairs to assist with the draft for April 2023. The landlord’s records do not support its version of events. This shows poor record keeping and is a further failing.
The landlord’s records were poor. This Service has been unable to fully investigate the issue because of this. The landlord failed to evidence what it had done and how it had communicated with the resident. The resident was put to further time and effort having to contact the landlord and pursue her complaint further.
Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. This Service has applied The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when considering the amount of compensation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cracks in the ceiling in the front room and door.

The records show that cracks were reported in March 2020, but it does not explain which room the reports relate to. This cannot therefore be linked to the issue raised by the resident in her stage 1 request. There are no further records relative to this issue. The landlord failed to address the issue within its stage 1 complaint response. This was a missed opportunity for it to consider its handling of the issue and put matters right at an earlier stage. This also meant that the resident had to spend further time and effort pursuing her complaint further.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had inspected and raised the relevant repairs. It said that it could not advise whether the cracks were related to the road. This response was reasonable. However, it could have explained how it would monitor the issue moving forwards so that it could satisfy itself that the issues were resolved.
The resident had however made the landlord aware of the issue on 9 November 2022. The landlord did not attend until 85 working days later on 10 March 2023. This is outside of its own timescales and unreasonable. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show how or if it communicated with the resident during that period. This is a record keeping failing. It then missed an opportunity to explain its delay within its complaint response.
Considering the above failings this Service has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Its record keeping was poor. Its response to the issue was delayed. The landlord failed to explain why within its complaint response.
Since this complaint, the resident has advised that the cracks have returned. It is unclear whether the landlord has been put on notice, but an order has been made below to enable it to set out an action plan of what it will do to resolve the issue moving forwards.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint request made on 9 November 2022 within 16 days on 30 November 2022. This was outside of its policy timescales and a failing. It is unclear precisely when the stage 2 complaint escalation was made.
The landlord’s first stage 2 acknowledgement states the complaint escalation was received on 22 February 2023. Its second update letter sent on 6 April 2023 refers to the complaint request being made on 9 January 2023. This is confusing and highlights the landlord’s poor record keeping which has been an issue throughout this investigation. The landlord was also outside of its own policy timescales. It had however kept the resident informed of its delays which was appropriate. The landlord also acknowledged its delays in its response times within its stage 2 response. It offered £50 compensation which was also appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address most of the issues raised by the resident. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further. The stage 2 complaint response did address the issues that it missed in its stage 1 response.
The complaint responses did not however show a meaningful assessment of what had gone wrong. By failing to consider what had gone wrong it failed to put matters right. This also prevented the landlord from gaining any learning from its own failings. The landlord did set out when it would inspect and when proposed works would start relative to some of the issues. This was appropriate. It lacked however accountability by not explaining how it would monitor issues or what next steps it would take to get matters resolved.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint responses also failed to put things right. The landlord also failed to show that it would learn from its mistakes.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered compensation for its complaint response delays of £50. This amount however does not fully reflect the further failings identified above. The resident had explained how it was affecting her and her household. She had alerted the landlord to a lot of repair issues. She had to live with the uncertainty of when the issues would be resolved. The resident then experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns through the formal complaint process without receiving a detailed response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the drainage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cracks in the front room ceiling and door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1900. £200 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen.
  3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the drainage.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cracks in the front room ceiling and door.
  5. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the front door.
  6. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to set out its position relating to the damp and mould and the cracks. It must provide an action plan detailing what steps it will be taking and when. It should also provide a point of contact for the resident who will oversee the issues until resolution. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store the works information accurately which reflect its own and contractor’s actions.
2. How it will monitor issues.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated.
4. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations.

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £250 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response.