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

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202331276)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331276

Tower Hamlets Homes

27 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Requests for repairs to the balcony door.
    3. Reports that the shower was not draining properly.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and the landlord is a council. The property is a one–bedroom, ground–floor flat where the resident has lived since December 2019. At the time of the complaint the resident lived with his wife and 3 children (aged between 5 months and 9 years).
  2. The landlord recognises the property is overcrowded. It said the resident has been assessed as needing a 3-bedroom property. The resident has been on the transfer list for a larger property since 3 September 2021.
  3. Repair records from 2022 show the resident reported:
    1. Damp and mould on 26 January 2022. This was treated on 2 February 2022.
    2. Damage to the glass on his balcony door on 27 May 2022. We do not know why the glass was broken but the landlord made the property safe that day. There was a delay arranging replacement glass. On 25 August 2022, the resident declined any further appointments. The repair was cancelled but the resident asked for the glass to be repaired again on 24 November 2022. The glass was not repaired at that time.
    3. Problems with the water draining from his shower on 10 June 2022. This was repaired on 15 June 2022.
  4. The resident complained about these issues on 16 February 2023. He said he had reported damp and mould since 2021 and it had affected the health of his children. He said his floor had been damaged due to the issues with the shower.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 March 2023 said there were no outstanding reports of damp and mould. It confirmed the drainage issue was resolved at the time it was reported. It apologised for delays repairing the balcony door and offered £50 compensation for this.
  6. The replacement door glass was installed on 14 March 2023.
  7. The resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the stage 1 response on 28 March and 15 May 2023. He asked for £6,000 compensation.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 19 May 2023. It confirmed the issues had been referred to the repairs team. An inspection on 25 May 2023 found mould and treatment was completed on 10 July 2023.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 September 2023 it increased its offer of compensation for the delay repairing the balcony door to £140. It maintained it had resolved the issue with the shower at the time but signposted the resident to its insurance team to make a claim for the reported damage.
  10. In his referral to us in December 2023 the resident said the temporary fix to the door had not been weatherproof or secure and affected the safety of his children. He later asked the landlord to review its compensation offer as it did not reflect the full impact, including his increased utility bills. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2024 increasing the offer to £250. The resident remains dissatisfied.

Assessment and Findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We are aware that the resident has other ongoing repair issues. However this investigation has only considered the issues raised and stages 1 and 2 of the complaint process between February and September 2023. 

 

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord has not provided details of a specific damp and mould policy. Its general repair policy says it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The resident’s report of damp and mould of 26 January 2022 was dealt with on 2 February 2022 when a mould wash was applied to the affected areas. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
  2. There were no further reports until the stage 1 complaint of 16 February 2023, a year later. The landlord’s stage 1 response signposted the resident to report his concerns as a new repair, but there is no evidence he went on to do so. It was a condition of the resident’s tenancy to report any repairs to the landlord. If there is an issue within a property, we expect residents to use reasonable endeavours to bring these matters to the landlord’s attention. A landlord cannot be expected to resolve issues before it is made aware of them (for example between February 2022 and February 2023).
  3. However, our Spotlight Report on damp and mould says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Therefore, once the landlord was put on notice of the resident’s concerns in February 2023, it should have been more pro-active. It should have arranged an investigation based on the information provided in the stage 1 complaint. It did not do so until 19 May 2023, 3 months later, following the stage 2 complaint. This was outside its 20-working day time to complete routine repairs and represents a failure in service.
  4. The inspection of 25 May 2023 found minimal mould on the bedroom wall. The inspector believed this was caused by overcrowding and furniture being pushed against bedroom walls. It also found mould in the hallway and severe mould on the bathroom walls and ceiling. A repair was raised that day for a stage 3 mould treatment to the affected areas and a moisture resistant topcoat. The inspector advised the resident of furniture placement and that the extractor fans were working. The remedial work was completed on 10 July 2023 (after an appointment for 16 June 2023 was re-scheduled at the resident’s request).
  5. It is positive the landlord arranged for repairs to be completed soon after the inspection. However, the initial delay in investigating the issue meant remedial work was carried out more than 20 days after the resident’s report of 16 February 2023. This amounts to maladministration as it did not treat the matter with sufficient urgency.
  6. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response that it would not pay for any costs he incurred treating the damp and mould. This decision was reasonable. We acknowledge it should have progressed the resident’s reports sooner, but it did also invite the resident to report the repair himself. It said it would then ensure the issue was addressed promptly (as it had done in the past). As stated above, it is a reasonable expectation for the resident to report the issues to the landlord, and allow it an opportunity to complete remedial works, before paying someone else to do so. Further, it seems any remedial work carried out by the resident was ineffective.
  7. The stage 2 response did not recognise the 3-month delay in investigating and treating the damp and mould. It is not within our remit to establish if there was a direct link between this and the health of the resident’s family. However, the landlord should have recognised that living with damp and mould for an unnecessary amount of time may have affected this, as well as their enjoyment of the property.
  8. It should, therefore, have considered awarding compensation for the distress and inconvenience this may have caused, in line with its compensation policy. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £200 compensation. This reflects our own remedies guidance for instances where there has been maladministration and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its findings and made no attempt to put things right.

Repairs to the balcony door

  1. The landlord dealt with the resident’s initial report of damaged glass to the balcony door appropriately. It treated it as an emergency repair and attended the same day to make the property safe (the glass was replaced with ply shuttering to each side), in line with its repair policy. The resident should have expected a permanent fix by 28 June 2022 (20 working days later), but the replacement glass was only ordered on this date. The delay was then made worse as the replacement glass was discontinued.
  2. Although a subcontractor attended on 20 July 2022, they could not access the property. Records do not show if the resident was notified of this appointment. It was a condition of his tenancy that he allow contractors access to carry out work, so long as they gave him written notice 24–hours in advance. Another appointment was arranged for 28 July 2022 but the sub-contractor did not attend due to an administration error.
  3. The resident’s later refusal of a new appointment on 25 August 2022 was in breach of his tenancy agreement. While he may not have wanted the repair at that time, the landlord was responsible for making sure the door complied with building regulations. It is unlikely the door would have been compliant in its temporary state. The landlord should not have closed the repair. Instead, it should have looked at other options to access the property (including legal proceedings). Its failure to do so was a failure in service.
  4. The resident reported the issue again on 24 November 2022 and it was not until 22 February 2023, 3 months later, that a replacement glass survey took place. The landlord’s repair policy explains that certain works, including the manufacture of doors and windows, may take longer to complete. However, it also says residents will be informed in such circumstances. The stage 2 response explained the delay was caused as the issue was passed between contractors. We have not seen evidence the resident was kept updated about this. This was a failure, and in addition to the continued delay and service failures already identified, amounts to maladministration.
  5. It is positive that the landlord awarded £140 compensation for the 5-month delay between November 2022 and March 2023. It was also appropriate for it to monitor the work to ensure it was ultimately completed. We understand why the landlord considered the resident’s refusal of a visit in August 2022 when determining compensation. However, it has not acknowledged the delay prior to this. The resident should have expected the door to be repaired almost a year earlier.
  6. Although the landlord increased its offer for the latter delays to £250, it still did not acknowledge the earlier delays between June and August 2022. Its compensation policy suggests awards of between £200 to £1,000 for each year of repair delay. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £350 compensation (inclusive of the £250 already awarded) to recognise the delay from June 2022. This is to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident whilst he lived with the temporary fix. This is in line our remedies guidance when there has been maladministration and the landlord has attempted to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the findings. This amount is mitigated by the resident’s actions when he refused an appointment in August 2022.

Reports that the shower was not draining properly

  1. Following the resident’s report of 10 June 2022 a contractor attended on 14 June 2022. They found the shower pump was faulty and a plumber needed to investigate. The repair was completed on 15 June 2022 when a contractor forced through the blockage and noted the shower pump was operational. The landlord dealt with this repair appropriately and within 20 working days, in line with its repair policy. There were no further reports of this issue (or any requests for compensation for damaged flooring) until the stage 1 complaint, 8 months later.
  2. The resident raised a new repair on 1 March 2023 and the landlord arranged for someone to attend the same day. The contractor was unable to resolve the issue and arranged for someone else to attend. The repair was completed on 7 March 2023. Again, this was acceptable and within 20 working days both of when the repair was formally reported and raised in the stage 1 complaint.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will only consider compensation claims for damage caused by a repair failure. It was reasonable for it to refuse the resident’s request for compensation for damaged flooring on that basis. There was no service failure in respect of this repair, as it responded within target timescales and resolved the issue on each occasion. Despite this, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurance team and invited him to provide details of any loss or damage (he would also need to provide photographic evidence and receipts). We do not know if the resident went on to make a claim, but this would be outside of our jurisdiction in any event.
  4. Overall, as the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with relevant policy provisions, there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the drainage from his shower.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Evidence suggests the stage 1 complaint was received on 16 February 2023, not 22 February 2023 as suggested in the stage 1 response. The landlord replied on 8 March 2023, within the 20 working day target outlined in its complaints policy.
  2. The stage 1 response told the resident the contractor responsible for repairing the door was unable to gain access on 28 July and 1 August 2022. We have not seen a record of the attendance on 1 August 2022. However, records show the appointment of 28 July 2022 did not go ahead due to an administration error. The resident was unhappy with this misinformation and later highlighted that there had been missed appointments. The incorrect information provided to the resident was a service failure. This caused unnecessary frustration to the resident and the landlord should apologise for this (see our order below).
  3. The landlord did not contact the resident to discuss his escalated complaint of 28 March 2023 until 12 May 2023. It should have contacted him sooner. Its complaint policy says it aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The resident followed this up on 15 May 2023 and said he did not accept £50 for 1 or 2 missed appointments (although the £50 compensation was specifically awarded for the delay repairing the balcony door).
  4. The stage 2 response was not issued until 20 September 2023, 122 working days later. It is positive the landlord was addressing outstanding repairs during this time, but the formal response was issued significantly outside target timescales and this represents a service failure. Although the landlord apologised for this delay, attributing it to staff shortages, it did not award any compensation in recognition. Its compensation policy has provision for awards between £25 and £250 for time and trouble pursuing a complaint.
  5. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £50 for its poor complaint handling. This is to recognise the time and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there has been a minor failure that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put it right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
      1. Reports of damp and mould.
      2. Repairs to the balcony door.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that the shower was not draining properly.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £600 compensation (inclusive of the £250 previously offered) as follows:
      1. £200 for its delay handling reports of damp and mould.
      2. £350 for its delay handling repairs to the balcony door.
      3. £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.