London Borough of Newham — case 202328922

Decision Case ID 202328922 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Newham Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 10 February 2026 Background The resident reported damp and mould in his kitchen and said it had started to spread into his bathroom. He told his landlord that he has fibromyalgia and other health issues, which make him sensitive to dust, noise and strong smells. The landlord carried out damp and mould work between 29 June to 18 July 2023.

During the works, the resident said he felt unwell and believed the landlord should have supported him more because of his condition and the disruption in his home. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of: the residents report of damp and mould the associated complaint Our decision (determination) There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There was service failure in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord completed the damp and mould repairs in line with its policy commitments. However, it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and any reasonable adjustments in its approach to carrying out the repairs. The associated complaint. The landlord delayed its stage 2 response and set deadlines in its extensions it was unable to keep.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 10 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £325 made up as follows: £225 for the distress caused to the resident for its handling of the damp and mould repairs £50 for its complaint handling £50 previously offered in its stage 2 response of 27 October 2023 This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 10 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should check residents’ records before planning works and not place the full responsibility on residents to repeat information about disabilities, especially when this is already on file.

The landlord could also consider asking residents at the start of repairs if there are any health needs or adjustments it should consider. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 17 July 2023 The resident complained to the landlord. He said he reported damp and mould in his kitchen, which also affected his bathroom. He explained that the works took several weeks, and during that time he stayed in his bedroom because he has disabilities. He said the chemicals, dust, and noise made him feel unwell and stopped him from sleeping or using his home normally.

He said the situation worsened his health conditions and led to new medication. He said he had very limited access to his kitchen and bathroom while the work took place. He felt the landlord should have moved him to temporary accommodation. He asked for compensation for the distress and inconvenience he experienced. 19 July 2023 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would provide a response by 31 July 2023. 24 July 2023 The landlord issued its stage 1 response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

In summary it said: it was sorry to hear about the issues and about the time the resident said it took to remove the damp and mould from the kitchen it first received the resident’s report about damp and mould on 19 June 2023 the next day, it requested an urgent survey it had no earlier reports from the resident about chemical smells, dust, health concerns, or any request to move it could not offer compensation without evidence that the resident raised these issues before the complaint its damp and mould team would review the case and decide if a move was needed the resident should contact the repairs team if he believed more work was required 7 August 2023 The resident contacted his landlord and said he was not satisfied with its response.

He said: he reported damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom he was disabled with long‑term health conditions the works caused strong smells, dust and noise, which made him feel unwell the disruption affected his sleep and daily routine his health worsened and he needed new or to increase his medication he expected temporary accommodation during the works he asked for compensation because he could not use parts of his home 15 August 2023 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation.

It said it would provide a response by 6 September 2023. 7 September 2023 The landlord told the resident it could not meet the deadline because staff were on leave. It said it aimed to reply by 15 September 2023 and would send a formal response once it had all the information for the stage 2 complaint. 18 September 2023 The landlord told the resident it could not meet the agreed timescale because it was still waiting for management approval. It said it aimed to send its response by 25 September 2023.

27 October 2023 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it said: it inspected the damp and mould on 20 June 2023 and completed the repairs from 29 June to 18 July 2023 it acted quickly on the repair and did not know about the resident’s health issues before the work started it handled the stage 1 complaint on time but took too long to issue the stage 2 response it set new deadlines, missed them, and did not agree the extensions with the resident because of the delay with its stage 2 response, it offered £50 compensation Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought the complaint to us, saying the damp and mould works in his home caused serious disruption and affected his health and daily life.

He explained that he expected more support from the landlord and felt distressed by how the landlord handled the situation. He and reiterated the concerns he had already shared with the landlord and asked for an increase in compensation and said the £50 offer was not acceptable. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate The resident told us that the damp and mould and associated works affected and worsened his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an injury caused.

The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconveniences. The resident told us that the damp and mould issues are long standing. Under our Scheme, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable time, normally within 12 months of becoming aware of a problem.

This helps ensure that evidence is available to investigate the complaint and that effective steps can be taken to put things right while the problem is live. Therefore, this investigation assesses the landlord’s actions from July 2022 (covering the 12 months before the resident’s stage 1 complaint) until the landlord’s final response in October 2023. What we investigated The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to damp and mould reports within 48 hours. It will then book an inspection within 2 weeks of the first contact.

The time needed to complete the work depends on how complex and large the job is. On 19 June 2023 the resident reported damp inside a kitchen cupboard and around it. The damp was also affecting his recently decorated bathroom. He said there was a strong smell of mould even though the mould was not visible. The landlord inspected the resident’s home the next day. It started the works on 29 June 2023. It installed a dehumidifier, completed the removal of the damp and mould, made good to the relevant areas and decorated the kitchen, walk in wardrobe and bathroom.

It completed these works on 18 July 2023. During the works, it placed a dehumidifier in the resident’s kitchen to help the area dry. The landlord completed damp and mould treatment in both the kitchen and the bathroom. The landlord said the damp and mould came from a blocked and cracked kitchen waste pipe. Water had leaked through the walls from the kitchen into the bathroom. It also said that in 2023 a schedule of works (SOW) was the only written record it produced after inspection.

The landlord attended within 24 hours, which met its 48‑hour acknowledgement aim. It inspected the home within 1 day of contact, which was within its 2‑week inspection target. It also refunded the resident £30 for the electricity used. This was a reasonable step, as it ensured the resident did not incur extra costs linked to the damp and mould works. The landlord acted in line with its policy in responding to the reports of damp and mould. On 11 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that he had to stay in his bedroom during the works because of his disabilities, including fibromyalgia.

He said the chemicals, dust and noise caused major disruption and made him feel unwell. He also said he had informed the contractor, who agreed to visit the next morning, and he asked the landlord for support. We are unable to see evidence that the landlord responded or took any action at this point. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 27 October 2023, it said the resident had not told it about his medical conditions before the works began, so it did not know about them at the time.

It also said it only offered temporary accommodation when works are large and affected more than 1 room. However, the landlord told us it already knew about his mobility issues from February 2000. The resident also told the landlord when he reported the repair in June 2023 that he was disabled. The landlord’s repair policy states that when it receives a repair request, it will gather information about the household to identify any special needs or vulnerabilities and ensure these are recorded and taken into account.

Although the resident informed the landlord that he was disabled, there is no evidence that this information was used to inform how the works were planned or carried out. This was a failing. The policy also requires that during inspections the landlord identifies any vulnerabilities, records them, and incorporates them into its service delivery. Due to the lack of records, it is unclear whether this occurred. However, even if vulnerabilities were identified, they were not considered when planning the works.

The landlord therefore missed opportunities to understand and mitigate the impact of the works on the resident’s individual circumstances. This was unreasonable Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord must consider a resident’s disability and decide whether any reasonable adjustments are needed in how it delivers its services. The landlord’s repair policy says it must record any vulnerabilities and make reasonable adjustments when planning repairs. In this case, we found no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability or recorded that it had made any reasonable adjustments.

By the time the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 24 July 2023, it had already completed the repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident he could apply for rehousing and sent him a medical form. Both responses missed the main point of his complaint, that he had to stay in the property while the works took place. This showed that the landlord did not fully understand the issue he raised. The complaint was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right.

Under our Dispute Resolution Principles, landlords should offer redress and show learning from complaints. Here, the landlord did neither. It missed the chance to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and to demonstrate any learning. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £225 for distress and inconveniences caused in its handling of the damp and mould reports. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there has been failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and it failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2022 edition. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The resident made his complaint on 17 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 19 July, within 2 working days.

It then sent its stage 1 response on 24 July, which was within 4 working days. This was in line with its policy and the Code. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 August 2023 to say he was unhappy with its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this on 15 August 2023, which was within 6 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 September 2023 to say it needed more time. However, it sent this update after the stage 2 deadline had already passed, and it still did not meet the new timescale it set.

The landlord wrote to the resident again on 18 September 2023, which was 3 days after the deadline it had promised. It said it needed more time, and it again failed to meet the new timescale. In line with the Code, landlords may extend a complaint response but must give a clear new timeframe. This extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. If the landlord needs more than 20 working days to give a full response, it must agree the extension with the resident.

Where the landlord cannot reach agreement, it must give the resident our contact details so the resident can challenge the plan or the proposed timescale. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 October 2023. This was 53 working days after it accepted the escalation. This was longer than its 20‑day target and longer than the maximum extension allowed under the Code. There is no evidence the landlord agreed this extension with the resident or it provided our contact details to the resident.

While we acknowledge the landlord’s offer of £50 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. The offer did not fully reflect the impact of the extended timescale, for not keeping to commitments, or having timely communication with the resident during the complaint process. All of which would have undermined the resident/landlord relationship. We have therefore ordered an additional £50 in line with our remedy guidance. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord had records of the resident’s vulnerabilities before it began work.

It did not use this information appropriately. The landlord may want to consider how effectively its application of records of vulnerabilities is used in practice. Communication In this case, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the works. This shows the need for clear, direct communication. Landlords should listen carefully, respond to the exact issues raised, and show they understand how the problem affects the resident.