Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — case 202448694

Decision Case ID 202448694 Decision type Investigation Landlord Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Landlord type Local Authority Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 18 December 2025 Background The resident complained to the landlord that the repair work at her property was outstanding. This was regarding damp and mould and adaptations relating to her child’s disability. She also complained about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member. She was dissatisfied with its response, so she asked us to investigate her complaint.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Damp and mould issues at the property. Adaptations at the property. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct. The resident’s complaint. Our decision (determination) We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of: Damp and mould issues at the property. Adaptations at the property. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons Damp and mould issues at the property The landlord managed the residents’ expectations about what repairs it needed to complete and how these were linked. It completed a damp survey and made appropriate attempts to complete the recommendations made. Adaptations at the property The landlord directed the resident to its adaptations panel decision to raise any concerns and confirmed it would explain the decision further in person. It subsequently made reasonable attempts to do so.

Concerns about staff conduct The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns and the evidence supports its subsequent explanation to her. Complaint handling The landlord delayed providing its stage 2 complaint response and did not suitably remedy its poor service. 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 £75 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its delayed stage 2 complaint response. No later than 22 January 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 2 May 2024 We completed an investigation of a previous complaint by the resident (case number 202222650) and ordered the landlord to inspect the property after any remedial work to confirm if damp and mould was still present.

If present, we asked the landlord to further investigate and remedy this. 17 October 2024 The landlord’s occupational therapist (OT) recommended a level access shower be installed downstairs in the property, for the resident’s son. 24 October 2024 The landlord completed a damp survey of the property. This recommended several measures to tackle damp and mould in the property. This included repairs to the external of the property, a heating upgrade, installing new extractor fans and a mould wash.

23 January 2025 The resident complained that the landlord had completed the mould wash from the damp survey recommendations, but not its other recommendations and the radiators it installed were “inoperable”. She said damp and mould had returned, and it was affecting her son’s health. She also said adaptations to the property had not commenced and wanted an update and complained about the lack of empathy and compassion shown by her housing officer (HO) to her situation. 24 January 2025 The landlord adaptations review panel (ARP) decided it would support the resident in finding a more suitable property.

It also said that in the meantime, it would install the level access shower as recommended by the OT. 7 February 2025 The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It confirmed it had completed mould treatment in the property. It said it received no response when it tried to book an appointment about the radiators. It stated it would confirm appointment dates for all other repairs. It reiterated the ARP determination and explained the outcome of its staff conduct investigation.

8 February 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She raised concerns with the mould paint used by the landlord and said it had not addressed the overall damp and mould issue in a reasonable timeframe. She said adaptations were at a standstill, and the HO did not fully comprehend her family’s circumstances and disabilities. 1 April 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it would revisit its mould treatment if not successful. It confirmed it would arrange the external repairs soon, but the resident needed to communicate with the HO about this and the heating issue.

It said the OT would visit the resident to discuss its adaptation decision with a surveyor. It reiterated its stage 1 response regarding the HO. 28 May to 1 December 2025 The landlord attempted to arrange appointments with the resident to complete all remaining work at the property without success. On 1 December 2025, it told the resident it would instruct a solicitor to begin the process of obtaining an injunction to complete the repairs if it did not hear back from her. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident told us she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not addressed all issues regarding damp and mould at the property.

She was also concerned that it had not completed adaptations to support her family. She disputed that the HO had contacted her about arranging appointments and felt intimidated by the HO and the mention of an injunction. 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 Damp and mould issues at the property. Finding No maladministration In her complaint of 23 January 2025, the resident said the landlord had not addressed the damp and mould issue at her property as per the report of 24 October 2024 and said its insulation programme had stalled. She said the bathroom extractor fan had not been repaired, and the radiators were inoperable. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed it had completed a mould wash and repaint to the kitchen and utility room on 7 January 2025.

It said it had previously attempted this on 14 November 2024, but the resident was unavailable. It confirmed this was in accordance with the recommendations within the 24 October 2024 damp report. Its explanations about its actions are supported by its repair records. The landlord appropriately confirmed it would revisit if its mould treatment was not successful. There is no evidence that the resident went on to specifically request this. It assured the resident the mould paint used was industry standard.

It also confirmed it had spoken to its specialist contractor and shared a direct quote from them which said, they believed there was no evidence of rising damp, to address the residents’ concerns about this. There is nothing in the evidence which undermines this statement. The landlord also confirmed in its complaint responses that it needed to complete external works to the property before it could start its external wall insulation programme (EWI) and had completed a further survey in March 2025 for this.

It explained that the repair to the extractor fan was tied to this, as a longer flue may be required. It said it needed to access the property for the external works initially and to inspect the radiators. It managed the resident’s expectations, confirming it should start the EWI work by 24 April 2025, but asked that the resident work with it to arrange this. Following this, there is evidence of the landlord contacting the resident on numerous occasions by post and email to arrange an appointment.

However, these were ultimately unsuccessful, often due to a lack of reply from the resident from 30 May 2025 onwards. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint responses were accurate about the repairs it had completed and what it needed to do to complete outstanding work. It managed the resident’s expectations on each repair but was unable to complete the work due to being unable to arrange an appointment with the resident. Complaint Adaptations at the property.

Finding No maladministration The resident complained on 23 January 2025 that the landlord had not commenced with the adaptations recommended by the OT at the end of 2024. She asked it for an update. In its complaint response of 7 February 2025, the landlord appropriately directed the resident to a letter it sent to her on 24 January (after the resident’s complaint) regarding the decision made by its ARP. This confirmed the landlord would support the resident with finding alternative suitable housing and fit a downstairs wet room in her current property.

The resident raised concerns with the outcome of the adaptation decision in her escalation on 8 February 2025. The landlord took reasonable steps to address this in its 1 April 2025 response, stating: The resident had the opportunity to raise her concerns directly with the ARP and explained how to do this. The resident’s HO and OT would attend to discuss the decision with her. The HO would communicate with her on potential dates to coordinate adaptation work. It is unclear if the resident contacted the ARP to raise her concerns following this.

There is evidence of the landlord making several unsuccessful attempts to arrange for the OT to visit, until this was completed in September 2025. In summary, the landlord appropriately referred the resident to the ARP to discuss any concerns with its decision. It attempted to arrange a joint visit but was unable to do this for a prolonged period despite making several attempts to do so. Complaint The resident’s concerns about staff conduct. Finding No maladministration In her complaint of 23 January 2025, the resident said the HO did not understand her family’s situation and lacked empathy or compassion for the family with multiple disabled children who were ill with tonsillitis at the time.

She asked that the HO be changed as her single point of contact (SPOC). In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed it reviewed the HO’s emails with the resident between 17 January and 4 February 2025. It found the following: No evidence to suggest the HO’s responses lacked empathy or understanding. It confirmed that the HO asked about the children’s well-being and apologised if their email appeared to the resident as lacking empathy. They also said they could arrange appointments when the children had recovered from tonsillitis.

The landlord said it would not amend the HO as the SPOC, as it found their correspondence to be professional, empathetic and understanding. All the landlord’s findings are reflected in the evidence, and as such, the landlord’s investigation and response to the matter were appropriate. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will provide stage 1 responses in 10 working days and stage 2 responses in 20 working days.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of 8 February 2025 within 5 working days. However, its stage 2 response was delayed. It took 36 working days (8 February to 1 April), exceeding the timescale in its policy by 16 working days. The landlord did not apologise for the delays in its responses and could have done so for failure to act in accordance with its policy. It did not consider compensation and should have done so in accordance with our remedies guidance. Learning The landlord should take heed of our Complaint Handling Code in its complaint handling.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord provided appropriate information to support our investigation, including repair history and all types of communication. Communication The landlord’s communication was appropriate, and there is evidence of it managing the resident’s expectations and making multiple attempts to contact her to arrange relevant appointments.