London Borough of Tower Hamlets — case 202328976

Decision Case ID 202328976 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Tower Hamlets Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 25 February 2026 Background In December 2022 the resident, their solicitors and the landlord agreed a schedule of repairs to address damp and mould in the property. The works were completed in June 2023. The resident was unhappy with how the contractors carried out the works and felt the repairs were insufficient.

The household comprises of a married couple and their children. The husband is the named tenant and has a lung condition. The wife is not the named tenant, but she represents the household in housing matters. For simplicity, when we refer to contact made by either spouse, we will refer to them collectively as “the resident”, unless a distinction is necessary for clarity. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that repairs conducted were insufficient and of poor quality.

The landlord’s handling of reports that damage occurred during a programme of repairs. We will also consider complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that repairs conducted were insufficient and of poor quality. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that damage occurred during a programme of repairs. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on post inspections previously conducted when the resident raised concerns about the quality of the works. However, the landlord did not arrange for an inspection after the resident reported that damp and mould had returned following a programme of repairs. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports about damage caused during the works, and its decision to not compensate the resident was in line with its policies.

The landlord warned the resident that they would likely experience delays due to staffing issues, and it later apologised for the time it had taken to send its stage 2 response. Considering the length of the delay it was inappropriate that the landlord did not also offer compensation. 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £150 for the distress associated with the landlord’s handling of reports that damp and mould had returned to the property £100 for the distress associated with the landlord’s complaints handling.

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 25 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should inspect the property in light of the resident’s recent reports of damp and mould. The landlord should also support the resident by providing practical advice around how they can prevent future mould growth.

The resident has told us they are concerned about damp and mould washes occurring while they are in the home, due to concerns about the chemicals impacting the husband’s lung condition. The landlord should consider this when organising any future mould washes. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 26 September 2023 The resident complained to the landlord. They said: There had been ongoing damp and mould issues in the property for several years. They said the landlord only took action to address these issues in 2022 after they instructed solicitors to issue a pre‑legal action letter.

Contractors were untidy when they conducted works, and they felt the property was left in a messy condition after the repairs. They believed the repairs were poor quality and that the damp and mould issues had not been resolved. They wanted the landlord to compensate them for the distress caused and asked for an independent surveyor to inspect the repairs. 9 October 2023 The landlord sent its stage one response, it said: There had been delays in it completing the repairs. This was due to its communication issues, the resident refusing access to the property and the resident acting in an abusive manner towards staff and contractors.

Further delays occurred because the property had been left in a cluttered condition. It also said the residents attended the property during the works, despite being rehoused, and disrupted contractors. The landlord said this led it to seek an injunction. It did not agree with the resident’s concerns about the quality of the works and said the repairs had been completed to a high standard. It said that if any damage had occurred, this could have been linked to the condition in which the resident left the property before the works began.

22 November 2023 The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the landlord’s response to their complaint was one sided. 18 December 2023 The resident contacted us about the landlord’s handling of their complaint. Following this, we asked the landlord to issue a stage 2 response to the resident. 3 May 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint and said the delay was due to staffing issues within its complaints team.

It had spoken to its repairs team and the contractors who completed the 2023 works. Both disagreed with the resident’s view that the repairs were poor quality or that damage had occurred. After the contractors completed the repairs its repairs manager assessed the work, and they signed off on the quality of the works. The household was rehoused during the 2023 works. It said when this occurred the property had been left in a cluttered condition, and this made it challenging for contractors to complete the repairs.

It did not consider a service failure had occurred, and therefore it would not be providing the resident any compensation. It provided information to the resident around how they could submit an insurance claim regarding the reported damage. 23 October 2024 The resident told us they were not satisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses. They said the repairs had not been sufficient, as damp and mould issues continued to affect the property. This was affecting members of the household who had medical conditions.

Because of this, the resident said they wished to move to another property. 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. Scope of investigation The resident has said mould in the property has affected the health of the household.

We cannot assess whether the property condition or the landlord’s actions impacted anyone’s health, as this would require a finding on personal injury. Only a court, or an agreement between the parties, can determine personal injury matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if they want to pursue a personal injury claim. The resident has said they want to move to a new property because of the damp and mould. In most cases, the allocation of housing is outside our scope.

We can only recommend that a landlord rehouses a resident if a property is significantly unsuitable, unsafe, or overcrowded. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that repairs conducted were insufficient and of poor quality. Finding Maladministration The landlord’s repairs policy says that when it receives a repair report, it will decide whether the repair should be treated as an emergency or a routine repair. It will then tell the resident the priority of the repair and when they can expect completion.

In 2022 the resident instructed solicitors. They sent the landlord a pre‑legal action letter about repairs in the property. The landlord and the solicitors agreed a schedule of works to address the condition of the property. The landlord completed these repairs between March and June 2023. On 26 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. Theysaid the recent repairs were poor quality, and they had not addressed the underlying damp and mould issues in the property.

The resident asked for the landlord to arrange an independent surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord said this was the first time the resident had reported damp and mould concerns after the 2023 repairs had completed. Following this report the landlord should have taken steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. In its complaint responses the landlord attested that the works it had completed in 2023 were high quality. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its repairs manager who had checked and signed off these works.

However, it did not address the resident’s reports that damp and mould had returned. This was a failing. The evidence indicates the landlord did not inspect the property, or attempt to do so, at any stage during the complaints process. This was inappropriate given its repairs responsibilities and considering that a member of the household had a lung condition, which may have increased their vulnerability to damp and mould. We have found maladministration occurred as the landlord did not inspect the property during its internal complaints process.

We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150. This payment is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused the landlord failing to inspect when these concerns were raised. In December 2024 the resident instructed solicitors for a second time. The solicitors sent a letter which said the property was in disrepair, the disrepairs raised included damp and mould issues. In March 2025 an independent surveyor inspected the property and found light mould growth in the bathroom, and light mould growth on the windows which could be cleaned.

The landlord arranged repairs in line with the surveyor’s recommendations. The resident has told us there is still damp and mould in the property. We have therefore recommended that the landlord inspect the property again, identify any further work needed, and provide the resident with advice on preventing mould growth. Complaint The landlord’s handling of reports that damage occurred during a programme of repairs. Finding No maladministration The landlord’s repairs policy says when it conducts repairs it will aim to ensure no damage occurs, and that properties are left in a clean and tidy condition after repairs are completed.

If damage does occur, its insurers will handle claims where liability is accepted. In other circumstances, the resident should make a claim under their contents insurance. The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation will not be paid when loss or damage should have been covered by contents insurance, or when a claim for damages has not been made within 28 days of the damage occurring. The resident said that after contractors completed the works, their property was left in a messy condition, and it took them a significant amount of time to clean it.

They also said their bed had been damaged, operatives had used their mop and bucket and left it dirty, and there were paint splatters on the carpet and in their kitchen. The landlord provided photographs and videos taken after the repairs. The photographs did not indicate a messy condition, but they did show what might be paint splatters. In its complaint responses, the landlord said no damage had occurred and the property had not been left in a messy state. As part of its investigation, the landlord spoke with its contractors and with the repairs manager who inspected the works.

They said to the best of their knowledge the property had not been left in a messy condition, no damage had occurred, and operatives had not used the resident’s personal items. The landlord said damage or mess could have occurred because the resident did not clear personal items before the works began. This made it more difficult for operatives to complete the repairs. The landlord did not inspect the property to assess the reported damage. Instead, it relied on the post-inspection reports, accounts of staff and contractors, as well as photographs.

It was understandable that the landlord chose not to complete an inspection following the residents reports when it had available evidence and when considering the time limits for damage related claims outlined in its compensation policy. In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it did not consider that a failure had occurred, so it would not be offering compensation. It did, however, give the resident information about how to submit an insurance claim. This was reasonable.

However, its response could have been improved if it also advised the resident that they could pursue a claim via their own insurers. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.

The landlord handled stage one of the complaint in line with its policies. This was appropriate. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in line with its policy. When acknowledging the escalation request the landlord said there would likely be delays due to staffing issues in the complaint department. It was good customer service that the landlord pre-warned the resident about complaint handling delays. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 109 days after acknowledging the escalation.

In its stage 2 the landlord apologised for the delays, but it did not offer any compensation. The delays experienced were significant, and an apology only was not appropriate when considering the length of the delays experienced. We have made a finding of service failure on the basis that the apology offered was insufficient in the circumstances. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100. Learning Our review of the complaint has identified areas where the landlord can learn from this case to support future service improvement.

Communication The landlord’s communication could have been improved. After the resident reported damp and mould re-occurring, it could have spoken to the resident to obtain relevant information about the condition of the property. This would have better informed its decision making. Record keeping We identified no areas of improvement in the landlord’s record keeping.