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 Waltham Forest (202425232)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425232

Waltham Forest Council

30 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 reported damp and mould in her home.
    2. response to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her family’s health and her request for a decant.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her 2 bedroom maisonette since November 2010. At the time of the complaint, she lived with her husband and teenage daughter.
  2. The resident first reported damp and mould in her home in February 2023. Some works were carried out in March 2023. On 21 November 2023 the resident reported that she had “severe” damp and mould in her home. She told the landlord that her husband and daughter had breathing problems which were being affected as a result of the conditions in the property. The landlord identified remedial works at that time which started on 29 April 2024.
  3. On 24 May 2024 the resident made a formal complaint. She said:
    1. the landlord’s previous repairs had been inadequate. Her daughter had been prescribed further medication, and her husband was on a breathing ventilator.
    2. She was told that the repairs would be completed in 2 days, but after 4, they were still unfinished. She could no longer take time off work to facilitate access for repairs.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 June 2024. It said:
    1. it had carried out mould treatments in March 2023. Follow on works that were required to treat other areas of the resident’s home did not happen until November 2023. It stated that the length of time was “unacceptable”.
    2. it had not considered the potential underlying causes of the damp and mould in early 2023. It was not until November 2023 that it identified that inadequate ventilation was a possible root cause and instructed its contractor to install fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
    3. the surveyor’s 13 May 2024 post inspection showed that not all of the work on the original order was carried out. It was “disappointing” to learn of the poor quality of works which had been carried out.
    4. it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £550 compensation, which comprised of:
      1. £150 for the delays carrying out works between February 2023 and November 2023.
      2. £50 for the delayed April 2024 works.
      3. £250 for the inconvenience and distress caused by “the impact of quality of residency, poor quality of work and multiple visits”.
      4. £150 for the time and trouble caused by “enquiring and raising a complaint”.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 July 2024. She said:
    1. “due to past experience” she wanted to know what works the landlord was going to carry out and associated timescales before it attended.
    2. she wanted to be decanted, and an assessment carried out to ensure her home was safe to live in considering her family’s health conditions.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 August 2024. It said:
    1. a decant was not required because the works could be completed room by room.
    2. works had commenced on 5 August 2024. However, it did not allow sufficient time to complete the works. It also made a “poorly” scheduled appointment on 9 August 2024. It would reschedule the works when the resident was available, which was Mondays and Thursdays.
    3. ventilation was a contributory factor in the issues. Therefore, it put the thermal boarding works on hold so it could strengthen the ventilation in resident’s property. It would contact the resident to arrange to visit to explore this option.
    4. there was “still an unreasonable degree of uncertainty” in its diagnosis of the underlying causes of the damp and mould affecting the resident’s property. It was “disappointing” that this aspect had not progressed further.
  7. It offered the resident additional £125 compensation which comprised of:
    1. £25 for the 5 August 2024 missed appointment.
    2. £25 for further delay in “diagnosing the underlying issue”.
    3. £50 for inconvenience caused.
    4. £25 for “necessitating a further complaint”.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that she was dissatisfied with landlord’s response because it did not address her concerns about her family’s health conditions. She stated issues with damp and mould were ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the damp and mould in her property affected her family’s health. We acknowledge the resident’s comments. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould, or fungal growth. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression, and anxiety.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states:
    1. it will arrange appointments “at times that suit”.
    2. it will ensure that residents are kept informed of the programme of works.
    3. it has a zero-based approach when addressing reports of damp/mould.
    4. it has the right to amend the completion timescale for individual repair works to take account of unforeseen or other specific circumstances.
  3. The Ombudsman’s 2021 Damp and Mould Spotlight Report (the Damp and Mould Report) stated when there is a problem, effective diagnosis is critical. It is also imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period.
  4. In her formal complaint, the resident stated that the landlord’s previous repairs had been inadequate. In response, the landlord acknowledged this and agreed with the resident. It said that it did not carry out the needed follow up works in early 2023 and did not consider the underlying causes of the damp at that time. These failures would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered the resident £150 compensation. Given the circumstances, the offer was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
  5. The resident also said that the April 2024 works were not completed within the 2 day timescale that the landlord had advised. She explained that she had to take additional 2 days off work and the repairs still were unfinished. In response, the landlord acknowledged that the works were incomplete, some works were “poor quality” and that it had carried out “multiple” visits. At this time, the works had taken another 2 additional days, and the landlord had to return to complete the work. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. In recognition of this, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation. Again, we are satisfied that this was a proportionate award.
  6. In her escalated complaint the resident asked the landlord what works it was going to carry out and the associated timescales. It is unclear whether the landlord provided her with the information. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that when the works started in August 2024, it did not allow enough time to complete them again. It offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience. It is unclear how many additional days were added to the August 2024 schedule that inconvenienced the resident. However, it is noted the resident has not disputed the compensation offered for this service failure.
  7. The landlord also stated that it would reschedule the works when the resident did not have work. This was positive and demonstrated that it had listened to the resident and was adhering to its policy that stated it would arrange appointments with residents at times that suits them.
  8. However, this was the second time that the landlord had not allowed sufficient time to carry out the works. There is no evidence that there were any unforeseen or unavoidable circumstances that contributed to the needed additional time. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord learnt lessons from these mistakes. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to review its timescales for such works to ensure it is providing reasonable time for them to be completed to minimise any future failings.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there was still an “unreasonable degree of uncertainty” in its diagnosis of the underlying causes of the damp and mould. It said that although it was investigating whether ventilation issues were the cause of the issues, it had not progressed further.
  10. There is some evidence that the landlord took some steps to investigate the underlying causes of the damp and mould when the resident reported the issues again in November 2023. This lead it to raise the April 2024 works. However, there is no evidence that it had carried out a meaningful and full inspection of the resident’s property at any time during this period or after. This meant it missed an opportunity to fully assess all potential causes of the damp and mould and raise all relevant works accordingly.
  11. It did not carry out a damp and mould assessment until after it had issued its August 2023 stage 2 complaint response. By doing so, it identified further required ventilation works. There is no evidence to suggest that these works could not have been identified earlier if it had carried out the assessment sooner.
  12. It is noted that investigating the root cause of damp and mould can be complex. However, the delayed assessment meant that the landlord unreasonably prolonged fully identifying the potential causes of the damp. As such the resident incurred further distress and inconvenience as the underlying issues were not fully addressed in a timely manner. Our Damp and Mould Report stated that effective diagnosis is critical. This is particularly important in this case, as the resident was concerned about the impact the damp and mould was having on her family’s health, as well as the effectiveness of previous repairs. Therefore the landlord’s delayed assessment would have also exacerbated her distress.
  13. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings on this matter. It offered the resident £25 for “further delay in diagnosing the underlying issue”. While it was positive that it offered the resident compensation. However, the resident reported the damp again in November 2023 and it took the landlord several months to carry out a meaningful inspection. Given the circumstances, the offer was not proportionate to the detriment caused and so it did not go far enough to put matters right. Therefore, in line with our Remedies Guidance an additional £100 has been ordered for this failure.
  14. It is unclear what works were carried out following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. However, the resident has told the Ombudsman that the issue with damp and mould in her home is ongoing. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her concerns.
  15. Overall, the landlord acknowledged it its failures in early 2023 and in April 2024 and appropriately compensated the resident for them. However, there is no evidence that it had learnt from its mistakes when it did not allow enough time to complete works in April and August 2024. It also did not carry out a timely and meaningful damp and mould assessment which delayed resolving the issues further. Therefore, we have found maladministration and ordered further compensation aimed at putting things right.

The resident’s concerns about her family’s health conditions and request for a decant.

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will consider decanting vulnerable residents if there is a particular adverse effect to their health from an unavoidable repair.
  2. In November 2023 the resident told the landlord that her family members had breathing conditions and in her May 2024 complaint she explained that the damp and mould had “worsened” their conditions. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated her concerns. For example, it would have been reasonable for it to have carried out a risk assessment. This would have helped it to understand the vulnerabilities within the household . Such information would have allowed it to take informed additional and/or specific steps to ensure that it reasonably mitigated any distress and inconvenience in relation to their conditions while the works progressed. Therefore, while the reason that it did not carry out such as assessment is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable.
  3. There is also no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in November 2023. Nor did it address them in its stage 1 response despite it forming part of the resident’s complaint. This meant that her concerns went unaddressed. This caused her further distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s lack of response was also not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Therefore, that it did not respond was also a complaint handling failure.
  4. In her escalated complaint, the resident reiterated her concerns about her family’s health in relation to the damp and mould in her property. She asked the landlord to decant her and assess the property to ensure it was safe for her family to live in. In response the landlord said that a decant was not needed because it could carry out the works room by room. While it may have been able to carry out the work without decanting the resident, the landlord’s response was inappropriate. Given that the resident had shared information about the vulnerabilities within the household, it would have been reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to make further enquiries with the resident to ensure that neither her daughter or husband were placed at additional risk as a result of remaining in situ while the remedial works were undertaken.
  5. Given the failings and missed opportunities by the landlord, we have found maladministration in relation to this complaint. We have also made a series of orders aimed at putting things right and ensuring that the landlord’s practices are improved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 July 2024. However, the landlord did not issue its response until 30 working days later on 12 August 2024. This was a deviation from the landlord’s policy timescales of 20 working days. The reason for the delay is unclear. However, it was a failing that the landlord was unable to issue its response in a timely manner. There is also no evidence that the landlord informed the resident that its response would be delayed which was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord offered the resident £175 for time and trouble caused by raising her complaints. This was positive. It demonstrated that the landlord understood and acknowledged the time and effort the resident had taken to make a complaint, which could have been avoidable if not for its failings.
  4. However, it did not address its delayed stage 2 complaint response. Nor did it, as previously highlighted in this report, address all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its response. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience. As these failings were not identified by the landlord, no action has been taken to ensure that the resident’s position has been restored. For that reason, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and made a series of orders accordingly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the effect of the damp and mould on her family’s health and request for a decant.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £550 compensation, which is comprised of:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her family’s health and request for a decant.
      3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
    4. contact the resident to ascertain whether:
      1. she has any current concerns about damp and mould in her home. If she does, the landlord should take steps to resolve the issues within a timely manner, taking into consideration the resident’s availability. As part of its investigation, it should also consider:

(1)  whether an independent damp and mould assessment is required.

(2)  carrying out a risk assessment, taking into consideration the household members’ health conditions.

  1. its records are accurate around her family’s health conditions. With her permission, it should update her records accordingly.
  1. remind staff to:
    1. ensure complaint responses are issued within the landlord’s policy timescales. Where this is not possible, they should extend the response deadline in accordance with the Code and update the resident.
    2. respond to all aspects of the complaint in accordance with the Code.
  1. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should carry out a case review, taking into consideration the failings outlined in this report. It should:
    1. remind staff to carry out damp and mould assessments promptly to ensure effective and timely diagnosis is done, taking into consideration our Damp and Mould Spotlight Report,
    2. ensure staff are trained/retrained on carrying out risk assessments where resident raise concerns that damp and mould are affecting their health.
    3. review its repair timescales for the works associated with this case. In doing so, it should ensure that they provide enough time for the works to be carried out.
    4. review its decant policy. In particular whether it should include consider decanting vulnerable residents that are concerned about damp and mould effecting their health.