Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Newham (202421897)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421897

London Borough of Newham

8 April 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of drainage issues affecting the toilet.
    2. Reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
    3. Request for a replacement front door.
    4. Concerns about asbestos.
    5. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and lives with her 2 children in a ground floor flat, owned by the landlord. She has mobility issues and her son has lung conditions including asthma, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on or around 10 July 2023 to report outstanding works to her front door and ongoing problems with the drainage. She contacted it again on or around 21 September 2023 to request an update, at which point she added that there were also issues with asbestos and mould in the bathroom.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 October 2024. Her specific complaint was that the toilet was not flushing. It issued its stage 1 response on 30 October 2024 to say it had attended emergency appointments and had booked further works.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 November 2024, it said the resident had raised dissatisfaction with a range of repairs. It stated the complaint was about drainage issues, damp and mould in the bathroom, the front door, and asbestos. It gave a timeline of actions so far and offered £750 in compensation.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised 2 earlier complaints with the landlord, which she has also referred to the Ombudsman. These included issues with the front door and drainage and have been determined separately under our references 202414895 and 202421894. To avoid confusion, this investigation will assess the landlord’s handling of these matters from 18 April 2023 to 11 November 2024, when it issued its final response to this complaint.

Drainage

  1. The landlord has provided limited evidence to this Service, which has affected our ability to make an accurate assessment. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records. This helps us to understand its actions and decisions. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. This investigation has therefore relied on the evidence provided to determine this case.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that “residents will be informed about progress with their repairs where required through various channels including telephone, text messaging and email.” It further states that “records made by [the landlord] must, as far as possible, tell the full story of what happened, when, and why.”
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 July 2023 to report ongoing drainage issues affecting the bathroom, kitchen, and particularly the toilet. There is no evidence that it responded, and she contacted it again on 21 September 2023, over 2 months later, to say it had not fixed the problem. It booked a CCTV survey for 4 October 2023, and it updated its records on 28 November 2023 to say it would book a further survey. There is no evidence that either survey went ahead, or that it conducted any remedial works until 5 January 2024 when it drained the toilet system. In the absence of evidence, we conclude that the landlord did not keep the resident informed. This indicates poor record keeping and poor communication by the landlord and was in breach of its repairs policy.
  4. The landlord attended emergency appointments to clear the drains and unblock the toilet on 4 June, 12 June and 8 October 2024, following the resident’s reports that the toilet was not flushing properly. In her complaint, she asked why the issue had been ongoing for so long and asked it to investigate the underlying cause.
  5. In its stage 1 response of 30 October 2024, the landlord apologised for the resident’s time and trouble, and stated that:
    1. It conducted a CCTV survey of the drains on 24 October 2024 which found issues with the pipework.
    2. It inspected the drains on 29 October 2024 and recommended various repairs to the stack pipe and cistern.
    3. It had arranged an overhaul of the cistern for 1 November 2024.
    4. It was waiting for its repairs team to approve the other recommended works, and its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment. 
  6. The resident made a further report to the landlord about the toilet flush on 6 November 2024. There is no record of its response, nor her escalation request. However, in the landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 November 2024 it said she had raised dissatisfaction with the works. It stated that it had overhauled the cistern as planned, and its contractor would be in touch that same week to book further works to investigate the root cause of the problem.
  7. The landlord also offered £500 in compensation for the resident’s distress and continued delay, and £250 for her time and trouble chasing the works. The total amount of £750 was a combined offer in respect of all the complaint elements included in this investigation, and it did not break this down any further. Based on its compensation policy, we consider that £150 of the award applies to this element of her complaint. It also referred to an award made under a previous complaint, which we have addressed in paragraph 29 of this report.
  8. The resident reported issues with drainage from the toilet from at least 10 July 2023 to 6 November 2024. The landlord did not act promptly despite being aware that this was an ongoing problem, and it did not keep her up to date. However, there is evidence of it taking further action from October 2024 and it said it had booked the necessary remedial works. It recognised its service failures and apologised for the delays, and its offer of compensation was reasonable. Thus, we conclude that it has offered adequate remedies for its failings.

Mould in the bathroom

  1. Issues with damp and mould are often complex, and it can take time to find the cause. This can make it difficult for landlords to remedy the problem as quickly as its residents would expect. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states that a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach, and its responses must be prompt and reflect the urgency of the issue. We expect landlords to communicate well between teams and departments, and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for making sure it resolves complaints and reports relating to damp and mould, including follow up or aftercare. Had the landlord followed this best practice, it may have avoided the service failings present in this case.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has a dedicated damp and mould taskforce which will conduct a thorough damp and mould assessment and work with the repairs team to consider all possible remedies. It will acknowledge service requests relating to damp and mould within 48 hours and schedule an inspection within 2 weeks.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2023, she said there were also outstanding issues with mould in the bathroom. It is unclear when she first reported this issue, however according to its records the landlord had conducted a damp and mould survey as recently as July 2023, as she had made an earlier complaint about damp and mould in other parts of the property. It was also arranging other repairs to the bathroom. As it did not dispute her report, it is therefore reasonable to infer that it already knew about the issue. However, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident or investigated her report, despite being aware that her son had respiratory issues.
  4. The landlord’s records of 11 June 2024 state that a leak from the property above, occupied by a leaseholder, had led to cracks in the bathroom ceiling. In its stage 2 response, it said that same leak had caused the damp and mould. There is no evidence that it investigated to confirm that this was the case or that it checked for any other causes. It had also been 5 months since it identified the leak, however its records do not show what it was doing to resolve this with the leaseholder, nor did it explain this in its response. However, it said its surveyor would attend on 15 November 2024 to assess the condition of the property.
  5. In response to our request for information in March 2025, the landlord provided us with a schedule of works dated 20 June 2024, which included mould treatment for the bathroom. However, this does not indicate when it planned to carry this out. It also provided an internal email of 19 March 2025, which said it had assigned the schedule of works to its contractor but the resident has not provided access. This indicates that it had not yet carried out the treatment.
  6. The landlord’s response did not provide any reassurance or demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s report seriously. There is no clear evidence that its taskforce was involved at any stage, which demonstrates that it did not provide any meaningful response or show that it had implemented any practical learning from the Spotlight Report. There is also no record that it appointed anyone to oversee the issue.
  7. We consider that £500 of the landlord’s compensation offer applies to this element of the resident’s complaint. However, we are unable to consider that this has fully remedied the situation. This is because there is insufficient evidence to show which works, if any, remain outstanding. This lack of clarity is also likely to have caused her further distress.
  8. We have kept in view that fact that this matter is a continuation of issues with damp and mould in the property which we have dealt with in the case with reference 202414895. Thus, the landlord should have been more proactive in clarifying timescales for works. For these reasons, we conclude that this amounts to maladministration. The required resolution at this stage is not more financial compensation. We, therefore, have not ordered further compensation. The outstanding issue is regarding clarification on the current situation with the works.

Front door

  1. In a previous stage 2 response of 18 April 2023, the landlord said the resident had complained that her front door was allowing draughts into the property. It concluded that the door met regulations, but it said it would overhaul the door and fit a draught excluder on 13 April 2023.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2023, she said there was still an issue with draughts from the front door. Its records do not show that it responded, and she contacted it again on 13 October 2023 to say that the door would not open or close properly. There is no record of its response to either report. This indicates further issues with the landlord’s record keeping and communication, which we have highlighted in other areas of this investigation.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 January 2024 to state that its repairs team had inspected the door and found no issues. However, it said it was due to visit the property the next day so would assess the door again. It sent a further letter to her on 16 February 2024 to state that it had “filled” the door on one side but not the other and would renew or replace the door if its contractor recommended this. Its response was unclear as there are no records of a recent or pending inspection of the door.
  4. The resident made a further report on 11 November 2024 to state that the front door was not closing properly. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of the same day, it said it had filled and repainted the other side of the door in August 2024, and it apologised for the delay. It is not possible to determine whether its earlier actions were appropriate as there is no further evidence. However, it confirmed that it had conducted the recommended works and the resident has not indicated that this remains a problem. Despite its issues with record keeping, there is no evidence of failure by the landlord.

Asbestos

  1. The landlord conducted a routine asbestos survey in July 2023 as part of wider works to the kitchen. A specialist removed the kitchen floor tiles, and its records state that there were no further issues or works required. However, the resident called it on 21 September 2023 to report that asbestos treatment was outstanding. In an internal email, its repairs team stated there were no issues and asked what she was referring to. There is no record that it contacted her again until its stage 2 response, when it said it had checked its records and spoken to its repairs team to confirm there were no problems with asbestos in the property. This further indicates poor communication by the landlord. However, there is equally no evidence that she contacted it again to follow this up or give any specific details. As there is no evidence of an issue with asbestos, there is therefore no overall failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. In its stage 2 response to this complaint of 11 November 2024, the landlord referenced a previous stage 2 response of February 2024, in which it had offered £1,750 in compensation. It said its new offer of £750 was in addition to this, in recognition of the problems the resident had continued to experience. It said it had therefore offered a total of £2,500. However, this was not appropriate as that earlier complaint was about different matters. Its previous offer of redress was therefore not relevant to this complaint and it should not have considered this.
  2. Section 6.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that where a resident raises additional complaints after the landlord’s stage 1 response, it must log the new issues as a new complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the purpose of stage 2 is to review the actions and decisions it took at the previous stage, to consider if its original decision was fair.
  3. The resident only raised the issue with the toilet in her complaint, therefore the landlord’s stage 1 response only considered this matter. However, its stage 2 response included 3 new complaint elements. This meant that she did not have the chance to escalate those issues before bringing her complaint to us, and it missed an opportunity for early resolution. It is not clear why it chose to do this, and there is no record of her escalation request. In the absence of evidence, we conclude that the landlord failed to follow the Code and its own complaints policy.
  4. The landlord stated that it had failed to respond to the resident’s escalation request within timeframe. It is not possible to assess this due to the lack of evidence, however it apologised and said it was providing staff training on this issue, which was appropriate. Its overall handling of the complaint was poor, and we have made a recommendation about this. However, in light of its response, we consider that £100 of its compensation offer relates to this matter, which was appropriate redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues affecting the toilet.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the front door.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to conduct a new damp and mould inspection for the whole property. It should provide an action plan to set out the steps it will take, with clear timescales for when it will conduct any works that it identifies. It should also provide a point of contact for the resident, who will oversee the issues until completion. It does not need to repeat this if it has already carried this out as ordered in our determination on case reference 202414895.
  2. It must provide us with evidence that it has done this within 8 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The findings of reasonable redress are based on the landlord paying the resident £750 in compensation as offered in its stage 2 response. It should pay this directly to her, and not offset this sum against any arrears, unless otherwise agreed.
  2. The landlord should review its record keeping. It is essential for a landlord to clearly document the actions it has taken. This should include situations where its taskforce has been involved with reports of damp and mould. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can effectively assess its response without clear records.
  3. The landlord should review its complaint handling to ensure that it adheres to its policy and the Code. It should pay particular attention to the complaint stages, to ensure that it responds to new matters at stage 1 if it has not done so already, in line with the Code.
  4. The landlord should also ensure that it gives a clear breakdown of its compensation offers in response to any issues, whether this is in resolution to a complaint or otherwise. This will ensure that its residents understand how it has reached its decision and it is clear what its offers relate to. It should also ensure that any offer of compensation or other redress reflects the issues raised in the specific case.