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 Redbridge (202409090)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409090

London Borough of Redbridge

23 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Handling of the repairs to the windows.
    3. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned by way of a mutual exchange in March 2019. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord is a local authority and has no recorded vulnerabilities on its systems for the household. The resident was pregnant at the time of the complaint and her son was born prematurely. She shared this with the landlord and repeatedly shared her concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her baby, who had developed respiratory problems. She also shared that her husband had asthma and described how the situation had impacted on her own mental health.
  2. On 17 June 2019 the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in the property and made another 2 reports before the landlord carried out a survey on 23 October 2023. The surveyor concluded condensation was responsible for damp and mould in the living room, kitchen, the main bedroom and recommended remedial repairs. The landlord completed the repairs on 15 December 2023, except the repairs to the kitchen. The resident explained she did not want to be without a working kitchen over Christmas.
  3. On 19 November 2022 the resident reported draughts and water ingress from the windows, she also said that some of the windows did not open. Following further reports from the resident, the landlord inspected the windows on 6 February 2023. On 16 February 2023 it raised a job to repair the windows but then cancelled it. On 28 September 2023 it inspected the windows and completed remedial repairs on 11 October 2023.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 19 February 2024. The complaint was about its handling of her reports of damp and mould and repairs to the windows. The resident said that her husband had asthma, she was 7 months pregnant and “extremely wheezy because of the damp and mould in the property”. She also explained health experts had said that she should not bring her newborn baby in the property after the birth because of the damp and mould.
  5. On 14 February 2024 the contractor surveyed the property for damp and mould and shared his findings with the landlord on 24 February 2024. He said that, overall, he found no evidence of damp or condensation within the property. He, however, found evidence of condensation in the hallway and that the remedial repairs to the kitchen were outstanding. On 1 March 2024, the landlord carried out a mould wash to the areas affected by mould.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 4 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint and said:
    1. It completed the damp and mould remedial works on 15 December 2023. It described that it removed the skirting board, fitted a damp proof membrane, fitted and plastered insulation boards.
    2. It confirmed it would carry out a mould wash to the areas affected by damp and mould.
    3. Depending on the outcome of the survey it planned to do, it may have to move the resident to temporary accommodation until it completed the remedial repairs. It said that it would discuss this with the resident in due course if needed.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 March 2024. She explained the repairs the landlord carried out were “inadequate”. She said it had not replaced the skirting boards or coving. She described how it had damaged the radiators and piping, which caused a leak and damaged the carpets. She said that the insulation boards had trapped the mould, which then spread to the ceiling. She elaborated that although she and the landlord had carried out mould washes to the affected areas, it had not resolved the underlying cause of the problem. She said the window seals were damaged. She also shared her concerns about bringing her newborn baby to a property with damp and mould.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 April 2024. It said:
    1. The resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom on 13 May 2021 and although it inspected the property on 20 May 2021, it found no evidence it had addressed the problem. The resident reported the issue again on 28 September 2023 and added there was damp and mould in the lounge. It said that it completed a survey on 23 October 2023 and the remedial repairs in December 2023, apart from the repairs to the kitchen. It explained this was because the resident had requested to put the repairs on hold over the Christmas period. It then carried out a damp and mould survey on 14 February 2024 and only found a problem in the kitchen.
    2. It raised a job in November 2022 to inspect the windows because of reports of draughts and water ingress. Its contractor attended on 30 November 2022 and on 19 January 2023, he requested for a surveyor to inspect the problem. The landlord inspected the property on 6 February 2023. The contractor contacted the resident about the repairs on 16 February 2023 but could not go ahead because the resident wanted to discuss the outcome of the inspection with the landlord first. On 23 February 2023 the contractor cancelled the job because the resident did not respond to his call.
    3. It raised a new job for the windows on 28 September 2023 and inspected the property on 2 October 2023. It said that it repaired the windows on 11 October 2023.
    4. Following the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it inspected the property and agreed to complete remedial repairs to the lounge, the bedroom and the kitchen. It said it would renew the window board in the lounge, renew the skirting board and coving, repairs the radiators pipes, add trim around the windows in the main bedroom and overhaul the windows, clean excess plaster, install an insulation board in the kitchen. It added it would apply a mould wash to the cupboard next to the kitchen.
    5. It upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledged and apologised for its handling of the repairs to the windows and the damp and mould. It offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings.

Post internal complaint process

  1. In June 2024 the resident raised a complaint with this service. She said that although the landlord has done some remedial repairs, it had failed to resolve the problem and the damp and mould in her property had returned. She said the works to resolve the problem would be extensive and she wanted the landlord to move them to alternative accommodation until it is done.
  2. In June 2024, the resident and her member of parliament representative (MP) reported to the landlord that the damp and mould was unresolved. On 9 July 2024 the landlord instructed a specialist contractor to carry out an in depth damp and mould survey at the property. The surveyor carried out the survey on 24 July 2024 and found elevated moisture readings within the property. He recommended investigating for a leak to confirm this was not the root cause of the problem.
  3. The landlord raised a job to investigate the potential leak on 1 August 2024 but did not go ahead because the resident could not lift the flooring. On 20 November 2024 it reraised the leak detection job and completed it on 2 December 2024. The resident informed this service that the landlord did not find a leak.
  4. In September 2024, the resident informed the landlord that although she had chased the outstanding repairs, the damp and mould remained unresolved. She said the kitchen was unusable. She described how poor workmanship had prevented resolving the issues and said that the remedial works done by the landlord had not resolved the problem. She requested for the landlord to move the family to temporary accommodation until it resolved the matter. On 23 September 2024 the landlord inspected the damp and mould and repaired the leak to a radiator.
  5. The resident informed this service in March 2025, the issues with the windows and the damp and mould were ongoing. She said that over the past year, she had rushed her baby to the hospital 3 times with respiratory problems, which were caused by damp and mould. She described that during one of those emergency, he stopped breathing. She also described the impact the situation had on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We recognise that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on her family’s health. We sympathise with the resident. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
  2. We understand the resident reported damp and mould in her property in June 2019 and May 2021. She said that she had spent money on managing the issue without the help of her landlord. She explained that over time the impact of the damp and mould on the family’s health became more noticeable. She also explained that in 2023, once she became pregnant, she became increasingly concerned about the damp and mould in the property and “stepped up” her efforts to get her landlord to resolve the problem.
  3. However, we did not see evidence that prior to February 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould in her property. Additionally, the evidence shows that following her report in May 2021, the resident made no further report of damp and mould until September 2023. Therefore, in keeping with the Scheme, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from February 2023 onwards, 12 months prior to the resident raising the issue as a formal complaint.
  4. We understand that in February 2024, the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows. Normally we would consider events which occurred 12 months prior to raising an issue as a formal complaint. However, in this case the evidence shows that the resident raised the windows repairs in November 2022. While there were delays in addressing the matter, the landlord noted it took actions in November 2022 and January 2023, which directly related to the report she made in November 2022. Therefore, we will consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows from November 2022 onwards.

Damp and mould

  1. Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents, especially residents who have young children and certain health conditions. We recognise that the present of damp and mould in a property does not automatically amount to a service failure by a landlord. However, when a resident reports damp and mould, we expect a landlord to act promptly to assess the issue and complete any remedial repairs.
  2. Landlords must consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. It is the landlord’s responsibility to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with the residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
  4. In this case, the resident reported damp and mould in her property on 28 September 2023. The evidence shows it immediately raised a work order to carry out a damp and mould survey, which it then completed on 23 October 2023. While we understand this would have felt like a long time to the resident, it can take time to organise such surveys. In this case, the landlord showed it promptly acted on the resident’s reports and booked a damp and mould survey. This was reasonable and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
  5. In October 2023 the surveyor found a problem with condensation in the living room, kitchen, the main bedroom and recommended remedial repairs. He recommended for the landlord to remove and refit the skirting boards, install a damp proof membrane, fit insulation boards to help reduce heat loss and apply plaster to the newly fitted boards.
  6. We recognise that although the landlord found condensation caused the problem in October 2023, it did not automatically blame the resident or her lifestyle. It showed that it looked at the property and considered what it could do to help manage the humidity levels in the property. It then completed the remedial repairs recommended by the surveyor. Those actions were reasonable and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to not automatically blame residents for damp and mould in their properties.
  7. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord approved the quote for the recommended repairs on 8 November 2023. It started the repairs on 11 December 2023 and completed them on 15 December 2023. While this was slightly outside its published timeframe to complete such repairs, as the delay was short, it does not amount to a service failure by the landlord.
  8. We understand that in December 2023, the resident asked to put the repairs to the kitchen on hold. She explained that this was because she did not want to be left without a working kitchen over Christmas, which was understandable. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to return and complete the remedial repairs to the kitchen after Christmas. However, the evidence shows that in April 2024, the repairs were outstanding. This was unreasonable from the landlord, it should have promptly booked a follow up appointment to complete the repairs.
  9. We understand the landlord asks its residents to report repairs and make appointments directly with its appointed contractor. However, if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair stays with the landlord and not the contractor. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it has adequate oversight of its outsourced services.
  10. In this case, the landlord did not have good oversight of its contractor’s service delivery. It should have been monitoring the outcome of the repairs to the kitchen and proactively chasing up the contractor to ensure it had completed the works promptly. Its failings delayed the damp and mould remedial works in the kitchen, which was unreasonable. Its failings caused distress to the resident who felt her kitchen was unsafe because of damp and mould.
  11. Following further reports from the resident and her formal complaint in February 2024, the landlord requested its contractor carry out a new damp and mould survey. We understand the surveyor found no evidence of damp and mould in the property apart from in the kitchen. He also found an issue with condensation in the hallway and said that it had not been able to inspect the main bedroom. The landlord also carried a mould wash on the areas affected by mould. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. It showed it promptly acted once the resident reported it had not resolved the problem.
  12. We recognise that on 4 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord the repairs completed to resolve the damp and mould were inadequate and did not resolve the problem. The evidence shows that it contacted the contractor about this and asked to do a joint inspection at the property. The evidence shows that it inspected the property and agreed the remedial works needed. While this was reasonable from the landlord, it should have kept oversight of the repairs. It should have satisfied itself that the repairs done in December 2023 and February 2024 were done to standard. Its lack of oversight caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a stage 2 complaint.
  13. Following its inspection in March 2024, the landlord carried out the agreed remedial repairs between 28 March 2024 and 3 April 2024. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it showed that once it knew the issues remained, it promptly acted to put things right.
  14. In June 2024 the landlord implemented its damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure. This was approximately 8 months after the resident reported damp and mould in her property. The landlord has advised that there was not a damp and mould procedure in place prior to this date. Its procedure says that it will be proactive in predicting where damp and mould may be present and take actions. It elaborates that it will deal with the cause of damp and mould and not just the symptoms. It explains that if a resident reports the remedial works did not resolve the problem, it will investigate the matter further.
  15. We understand that in May 2024, the resident and her local MP reported to the landlord that the remedial repairs had not resolved the problem and the damp and mould had returned. The resident described how damp and mould had damaged the newly fitted kitchen. She also said that “bulges of water” appeared in the main bedroom ceiling, where her premature baby slept. Both the resident and her MP emphasised to the landlord that a young baby lived in the property.
  16. We are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. However, the resident has informed us that she continued to experience damp and mould in her property. Therefore, we are making an order for the landlord to carry out a specialist damp and mould survey and carry out any required remedials repairs.
  17. From its own admission to this service, the landlord did not carry out an impact assessment or consider the risks to the family because it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the household. However, the evidence shows that the resident reported her concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her baby since February 2024. The resident also shared with the landlord that her baby was premature, experiencing respiratory problems and she was worried the property condition “would kill” him.
  18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould says that landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents. While the resident had repeated her concerns about her baby’s health in emails to the landlord, we saw no evidence it considered this or assessed the risks. The landlord did not show it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her baby’s health in relation to the damp and mould problem which was inappropriate and unreasonable.
  19. In addition to her concerns about the impact of the situation on her baby, the resident described how she also experienced significant distress. She said, “I am suffering from extreme anxiety, worried that the property condition is going to kill my son”. She explained that because of this she was receiving psychiatric treatment. She also said that after she could not use her kitchen for several weeks, she stopped producing milk to feed her baby. She said that being unable to breastfeed her child was “devastating”.
  20. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord did not appropriately record the household vulnerabilities. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management says that recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service to residents. This information must be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately. The landlord did not do this, which was unreasonable and contributed to its failings in identifying the risks presented to the household.
  21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report says that landlords should share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. The landlord informed this service that it had not share the outcome of its surveys and findings with the resident. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The landlord also did not act per its damp, mould and condensation procedure to inform residents of the findings of its investigations.
  22. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property. We recognise that the landlord carried out surveys and remedial works. However, it did not show it considered the household vulnerabilities or assessed the risks. There were delays in doing some of the remedial works such as the kitchen. It did not keep oversight of the issues. It also did not share its findings with the resident.
  23. We understand the landlord offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident for its failings. However, its offer was in relation to several repairs. It did not say how much of the compensation related to its handling of damp and mould. It is also our opinion that its offer was too low and did not reflect the failings identified and their impact.
  24. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £450 and this is equivalent to (this is in addition the offer made by the landlord in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint):
    1. £200 for the delays in completing some of the repairs, its lack of oversight of the repairs and its failings in sharing its findings with the resident.
    2. £150 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident who had to raise the issues as a complaint.
    3. £100 for failing to assess the potential risks to the household health.

Repairs to the windows

  1. The landlord’s tenancy conditions handbook says it will repair the structure and exterior of the building, which includes the window frames, windowsills and draught proofing the windows. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. The evidence shows that on 23 November 2022, the landlord raised a job after the resident reported draughts and water ingress from the windows. We understand the contractor attended the property on 30 November 2022, which was reasonable and in keeping with the landlord’s published timeframe to attend to such repairs.
  3. Following this, the contractor requested the landlord to inspect the windows. The landlord said that the contractor made the request on 19 January 2023, 50 days after visiting the property. While the landlord appointed the contractor to address the repairs, it retained the responsibility and obligations to complete those within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord did not show that it updated the resident or explained the reasons for the delay in requesting the inspection. The delays in addressing the matter and lack of communication with the resident were unreasonable.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord inspected the windows on 6 February 2023, 18 days after the contractor’s request, which was reasonable. On 16 February 2023, the landlord raised a job to repair the windows. It explained that although the contractor tried to make an appointment to repair the windows, the resident said she wanted to speak to the landlord about the outcome of its inspection before going ahead with the repairs. The landlord informed this service it had not shared its findings with the resident, which was unreasonable. Its failings contributed to the job being recorded as cancelled on its housing management system.
  5. The evidence shows that in September 2023, the landlord raised a new repair for the windows. It said that it repaired the windows 13 days later, which was in keeping with its repairs handbook to complete such repairs within 28 days. However, the evidence shows that the repairs were outstanding since February 2023. We recognise the landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. It explained that cancelling the repair in February 2023, contributed to the delays in addressing the problem. While we understand the landlord has put measures in place to prevent this from happening again, its lack of oversight of the repairs was unreasonable.
  6. In March 2024, the resident informed the landlord that the windows “seals were damaged”. We understand that prior to issuing its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord inspected the property. While it agreed to add trim around the windows and completed this in March 2024, it did not mention any repairs needed to the windows seals. We saw no evidence that the resident challenged this at the time. Therefore, we cannot conclude there was a service failure by the landlord in addressing repairs to the windows seals.
  7. We understand the resident reported further issues with the windows in September 2024. She also informed this service in December 2024 and March 2025, that she was still experiencing issues with draughts from the windows. While we do not doubt the resident’s reports, we would consider those to be new repairs.
  8. We are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the windows repairs beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. However, the resident has informed us that she continued to experience draughts from her windows. Therefore, we are making an order for the landlord to inspect the windows and carry out any required remedials repairs.
  9. After considering the evidence of the case, we determined there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the windows. The evidence shows the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident, keep oversight of the repairs and complete the repairs within its published timeframe.
  10. We recognised the landlord offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings in handling several repairs, including the repairs to the windows. However, in our opinion the level of compensation it offered does not reflect the impact of the delays in resolving the problem. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 to reflect the impact of its failings in repairing the windows within a reasonable timeframe. This is in addition the offer made by the landlord in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

  1. When providing information requested by this service for this investigation, the landlord said that it outsourced its repairs service. It explained that it did not hold records of the conversations between the contractor and residents.
  2. It is of concern that the landlord appears to have no oversight of communications between its residents and its contractor. This would not only limit its ability to audit and quality check the service being provided but also prevent it from providing detailed and complete responses to residents’ queries.
  3. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) said that “Consistently, we find that poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why the landlord fails to provide an adequate service, particularly in the repairs service”. In this case, there are gaps in the landlord’s repairs logs that have inevitably affected its ability to resolve the substantive repairs issues and provide evidence to this Service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the windows.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings found in this report.
    2. To pay £900 in compensation directly to the resident and this is equivalent to:
      1. £150 compensation it offered at stage 2 if it has not already paid it. 
      2. £450 to reflect the impact if its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
      3. £300 to reflect the impact of its failings in repairing the windows within a reasonable timeframe.
    3. To assess the risks from damp and mould to the family and consider whether it is safe for the family to live at the property until it resolves the issue of damp and mould. Its risk assessment is to include the measures it will take to mitigate the risks to the family (if any), this might include moving the family to alternative accommodation. The landlord is to share the risk assessment and actions to mitigate the risks with this service.
    4. To inspect all the windows within the property. The landlord is to share the outcome of its inspection and the schedule of work for any remedial repairs it found (if any) with the resident and this service.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to carry out a damp and mould survey of the property by an independent damp and mould surveyor or a damp and mould specialist. The landlord must share the outcome of the survey and the schedule of work for any remedial works it found (if any) with the resident and this service.
  3. Within 8 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to carry out a review of this case. This should include a review of its practices, especially how it records repairs and keep oversight of repairs once reported to its appointed contractor. It is to share its findings and plans for any improvements with this service.