All Case Studies

Water ingress, damp and mould, insurance and complaint handling (June 2025)

Summary

Mr L, a leaseholder, had been experiencing ongoing issues with water ingress and mould in their flat, which they initially reported on 14 November 2023. Despite us assigning re-pointing work to a contractor, the leaseholder raised a formal complaint in December 2023 and January 2024 about incomplete repairs, poor communication, and leaks.

We acknowledged the complaints, confirmed no initial evidence of water ingress, offered a second opinion, and proposed £500 compensation. However, the leaseholder escalated the complaint in March 2024, citing health impacts from mould, that windows needed replacement by us, ongoing balcony water pooling, inadequate bathroom ventilation, and concerns over building maintenance due to impending demolition. The leaseholder requested more compensation, window replacement, completed repairs, and insurance claims for damaged belongings.

By 31 March 2024, we confirmed completed inspections and repairs, planned further work on vents and the balcony, acknowledged the leaseholder’s responsibility for internal mould removal, advised insurance claims for personal belongings, and admitted communication failures but offered no additional compensation. Despite these commitments, the leaseholder reported in November 2024 that window repairs remained incomplete and mould had reappeared. The ongoing issues highlight the leaseholder’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the situation and the need for more effective communication and resolution of the repair problems.

The Ombudsman found that:

Water ingress

1. We had inspected the brickwork within 7 days of the report being made in Nov 2023 and erected a scaffold 6 days later to carry out the repointing. This was in line with our policy.
2. Following a complaint made in December 2023 that only half the work had been done, we had arranged for the windows to be inspected in January 2024. We found no faults with windows but the leaseholder disputed this. This was not in line with our policy as it was 24 days from the day it was reported.
3. A further visit was made in Feb 2024 and we informed the leaseholder that we will get a second opinion by another contractor which was completed in Feb 2024.
4. In our stage 2 response in March 2024, it found that our part of our response conflicted with the evidence provided by the contractor, in that we ought to have known that the works to the treacle vent would not resolve the issue.

Damp and Mould

1. It was reasonable for us to inform the leaseholder that the removal of mould within their home was the leaseholders responsibility. However we should have checked the structure of the building.
2. We had offered and removed the mould in February 2024.

Insurance

1. We should have provided the leaseholder with timely information on how to claim off the landlord’s liability insurance for personal belonging damages.

Complaint handling

1. There was delays in logging the complaint when the leaseholder first reported it to us in December 2023
2. There was a delay in responding to the complaint. Even though we had provided a holding response, we should have informed when a full response would be provided.

 

Outcomes

• Service failure in relation to our response to reports of water ingress from exterior walls and associated repairs.
• No maladministration in our handling of the reports of damp and mould
• Service failure in our handling of request to claim off insurance
• Service failure in our handling of the complaint

Orders and recommendations

• Write a letter of apology to the resident.
• Pay £600 compensation.
• Arrange an independent survey of the windows.
• Complete any repairs within 8 weeks.
• Review policies and obtain legal clarity on what aspects of the window are classed as internal components which the leaseholder is responsible for and arrange for any repairs deemed to be our responsibility.
• Provide information about how he may make a claim on the landlord’s public liability insurance.