Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Lewisham (202416712)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416712

London Borough of Lewisham

31 July 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 handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of ceiling and wall cracks.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a two-bedroom flat in a block with her daughter; both are asthmatic.
  2. The evidence shows the resident reported to the landlord in mid-2022 that she was experiencing problems with damp and mould in her home. The landlord said it would inspect the problem in June 2022, and offered to do a mould wash. The resident told the landlord in early 2023 that the mould problem was worsening and also reported wall and ceiling cracks. An inspection took place on 20 February 2023, and the resident continued to report the same concerns in April and May 2023.
  3. On 2 June 2023, she complained to the landlord stating she had had no response since April 2023, and no repairs had taken place. She requested updates on the damp and mould, and crack repairs. On 20 June 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 response, apologised for poor communication, and said it had raised a work order to install an extractor fan to address the damp. On 26 June 2023, the resident replied, dissatisfied that not all concerns were addressed and no repair date given.
  4. On 18 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response where it upheld the complaint. It acknowledged it had failed to arrange follow-up works after the inspection and also after its stage 1 response due to an administrative error. It confirmed it had now raised the extractor fan job, and its contractor would contact her by 27 October 2023. It said it had raised jobs for mould treatment, crack repairs and redecorating, and offered £200 compensation.
  5. On 30 October 2023, dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling and its compensation offer, she asked to escalate the complaint. On 27 November 2023, the landlord issued its final stage 3 response, upholding the complaint. It acknowledged failing to act on her 26 June 2023 escalation and delaying necessary works identified in February 2023. It agreed to a second inspection to assess the cracks and asbestos risk and determine if specialist surveys were needed. It also agreed to redecorate all bathroom walls. It offered an insurance claim form for damaged belongings and a further £150 compensation.
  6. In her referral to the Service in July 2024, the resident stated some mould treatment and decoration took place, but the extractor fan installation remained outstanding. She added mould had returned, and cracks in the bedroom and living room had worsened. She feared the building was subsiding and was concerned for her and her daughter’s safety. She wanted repairs to be completed and sought further compensation for disruption, inconvenience, and for damaged belongings.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. On 22 July 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that an unknown liquid, entering through a ceiling crack, had damaged her belongings. However, we have not seen this issue has exhausted the landlord’s process and therefore we cannot investigate this. The resident raised this matter with the landlord’s chief executive officer in October 2024 and an insurance claim was assessed by the landlord in November 2024. Any dissatisfaction following this should be treated as a new complaint. However, it should be noted that insurance decisions are not a matter within the Ombudsman’s remit.
  2. The resident consistently stated that the property’s condition affected the household’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. After the landlord was made aware of damp around June 2022, it offered a damp survey for 23 June 2022 and offered a mould wash with flexible appointments. However, it is unclear if this survey happened. It also attended the mould wash appointment earlier than agreed and the appointment failed. This disregard for her availability was poor service because it did not attend at the agreed time.
  2. On 27 January 2023, following further mould reports, the landlord apologised for prior service failings, requested photos, and scheduled a visit for 6 February 2023. Yet, the landlord failed to attend this appointment.
  3. An inspection took place on 20 February 2023, where the landlord found mould in the bathroom and bedroom. This inspection was 8 months after the resident’s initial June 2022 report. However, nothing more happened until 29 March 2023, where it told the resident it would install an extractor fan in the bathroom.
  4. The resident subsequently complained in June 2023 after receiving no further communication. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised and confirmed a work order for the extractor fan had been raised. However, given the ongoing delays and lack of proactive follow-up since 2022, this response was inadequate; the landlord should have provided as a suitable remedy such as compensation.
  5. The resident chased the landlord about the extractor fan repair on several occasions between May and September 2023, yet the landlord still failed to raise the extractor fan job. This was contrary to its repairs policy where it aims to manage repairs proactively so residents do not need to chase things up.
  6. It appeared mould treatment and decorating was scheduled for 6 November 2023, but the landlord failed to attend this appointment. It informed the resident only that morning, failing to give appropriate notice, which added to her frustration considering previous missed visits. The evidence shows the resident told us in August 2024 that mould treatment and decoration work were completed but further mould was discovered.
  7. Recommended works like the extractor fan installation remained incomplete long after the issue was identified, and the landlord’s final response did not address this. The works were completed in December 2024, over 2 years after the resident’s initial report.
  8. The landlord was aware from the resident that the household were asthmatic. There is no evidence of it considering whether to do a risk assessment This was not in line with its damp and mould policy which states it will take reports seriously and aim for a holistic, resident-focused resolution.
  9. The resident reported mould had damaged her belongings. While the landlord eventually signposted her to its insurer in its final response, it could have done so earlier and following her May 2023 email where she explained this.
  10. The resident also reported to the landlord she had lost earnings from taking time off work for appointments. This caused frustration, especially given her willingness to work with the landlord to resolve the issue. In its final response, the landlord recognised that repairs would have been more convenient for her had they been arranged during the school holidays, and increased its compensation offer. However, it did not explain that, in accordance with its compensation policy, it would not reimburse her for loss of income. The Ombudsman does not award compensation for loss of earnings but may order compensation for inconvenience where a landlord fails to resolve a repair issue in a timely manner, as in this case.
  11. Overall, the landlord failed to complete necessary repairs in a reasonable time and often only acted when contacted. The complaints process did not serve to move repairs forward and the landlord did not keep the resident updated or meet its own service standards. It was slow to inspect, poorly managed appointments and did not treat the reports of mould with the necessary urgency nor carried out a risk assessment.
  12. The landlord attempted to put matters rights by apologising, arranging work and offering £350 compensation across its formal responses. However, some mould works such as the extractor fan remained outstanding long after the final response and it is unclear how much of the compensation related to damp and mould. The remedy offered was insufficient considering the extensive delays and the impact on the resident’s living conditions.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ceiling and wall cracks

  1. The resident first reported wall and ceiling cracks on 10 January 2023, describing them as “major cracks” in need of decoration. As part of her complaint, she said she reported the cracks to the landlord in June 2022, but the evidence shows it was not informed until January 2023. It undertook an inspection on 20 February 2023 and noted “cracks in the external wall…running along the living room ceiling”. However, it did not appear to recommend any action.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord was unclear about the cause and full nature of the cracks. The landlord did not communicate further on the matter and the resident complained in early June 2023 that the cracks had not been repaired. The landlord did not address this issue in its stage 1 complaint response.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in October 2023 it committed to ‘rake out and fill cracks’ in the living room ceiling and external wall. On 30 October 2023 the resident again reported the cracks, suspecting there was a structural issue with the building and raised concerns about possible ceiling collapse and asbestos.
  4. The landlord’s November 2023 final complaint response identified a second inspection was needed to assess the situation, but it did not carry out a structural survey until late January 2024, nearly 3 months after the resident reported her structural concerns. This survey found no serious subsidence and that the movement causing the cracks had stopped. However, the landlord did not communicate these findings to the resident until 18 June 2024, 5 months later.
  5. The extensive delays in conducting and sharing the structural survey, despite the landlord’s commitment in its final response to do so ‘quickly’, were contrary to its repairs policy for treating dangerous ceilings as emergencies, and a failing. Although the cracks did not affect the resident’s occupation of the property, they caused her significant worry and stress about safety, as shown by her repeated follow-ups and requests for the surveyor’s report, and undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. On 26 June 2023, the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 complaint response. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint.
  2. The resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the delays in repairs on more than one occasion. Despite this, the landlord missed opportunities to escalate the complaint sooner. The complaint was not escalated until the MP intervened on 15 September 2023. This caused time and trouble for the resident and the landlord failed to respond at stage 2 within its 20 working day policy timescales.
  3. Although the landlord acknowledged this delay in its final response, it failed to offer a remedy for this complaint handling error. Given the resident’s time, effort, and the MP’s involvement, this amounts to service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ceiling and wall cracks.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident further compensation of £450 made up of:
    1. £250 for the failings identified in its handling of reports of damp and mould.
    2. £150 for the failings identified in its handling of reports of ceiling and wall cracks.
    3. £50 for the failings in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman to confirm that it has complied with these orders within the timescale above.
  3. In this investigation there were failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and similar to those identified in a different complaint investigated by the Ombudsman (case 202124577). Orders were made in that investigation which should also address the failings found in this one. Because of that we have made no further orders for the landlord at this time.