From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Lewisham (202341994)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341994

Lewisham Council

19 December 2024

 

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 the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
  2. The landlord raised 3 work orders between 4 November 2022 and 17 November 2022 to repair the roof as the resident reported that it leaked every time it rained and caused the ceiling to be damp.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2023 as the roof leak was ongoing. She was concerned about the living conditions and impact on her health. It appears the landlord accepted this correspondence as a complaint.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 20 November 2023, it said the resident initially reported the leak in November 2022 and it completed the repairs the same month. It raised a further work order in January 2023 when the resident reported a recurrence of the leak, and it completed repairs in February 2023. It further attended on 21 November 2023 and found the weather seals needed replacing. It explained that moving forward, its contractor would arrange an appointment with the resident within 5 working days. It apologised for the extended period to put in place a full repair and offered £100 compensation.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 30 November 2023 as the landlord had not contacted her about the appointment within the 5 working day timeframe set out in its stage 1 response. She said that it had been raining a lot and the leak was ongoing, which had resulted in more damage to the ceiling, including mould. She also said the issues were impacting her asthma.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 January 2024. It apologised that the roofing contractor had not contacted the resident. It said the job was put on hold as it did not have the resident’s contact details. The contractor proposed an appointment date of 12 January 2024.
  7. The resident further escalated the complaint on 26 January 2024 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of communication and professionalism. She said she had not been contacted following the appointment. She thought it was unacceptable that the job was put on hold as she had provided her contact details several times. She said the recent weather had made the leak worse and had damaged her items. She also did not think the landlord had considered her health and safety.
  8. The landlord’s stage 3 response was issued on 4 March 2024 by an independent adjudicator. It said it can sometimes take time to establish the cause of a leaking roof and it was not necessarily at fault for initially trying a few less expensive repairs to resolve the issue. It said the property should be weatherproof, so the landlord should have arranged a temporary roofing cover when it identified the weather seals had perished in November 2023. The landlord took too long to complete the repairs, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It recommended the landlord to:
    1. Arrange the necessary roof repairs and if a delay is inevitable it should put in place a temporary roof covering.
    2. Provide a dehumidifier to control the damp and enable the walls and ceiling to dry out once the leak is resolved.
    3. Pay a further £150 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the delay.
    4. Undertake mould treatment and remedial interior repairs, including redecoration, once the leak is fixed and the interior dried out.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as the landlord failed to fulfil the recommendations made in the stage 3 response and the leak is still ongoing. She was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. Its website states that it is responsible for repairs to roof leaks, and it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Its damp and mould policy states that it will keep residents informed of the actions it takes and it may offer an interim solution in cases where it cannot immediately resolve the issue.
  2. The landlord initially raised a work order to repair the roof on 4 November 2022, as the resident reported there was a leak every time it rained. There is no evidence to suggest that the leak was uncontainable, so the landlord should have handled it in line with its routine repair timeframe. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it completed the repairs the same month. However, there is no evidence to confirm the completion dates of the works, or what steps it took to resolve the leak. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Nonetheless, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident disputed the landlord’s version of events.
  3. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it raised a further work order in January 2023. The only work order that the Service has seen evidence of in this time period was to install scaffolding on 25 January 2023. It is therefore unclear exactly when the resident reported the recurrence of the leak. The repair records show that it completed the repairs on 8 February 2023. From the available evidence, it appears that the landlord completed the works within 20 working days. Again, it is important that landlords keep clear repair records. This should include residents’ reports of repair issues, details of appointments, inspection reports, details of works carried out and whether follow-on works are required, and completion dates.
  4. The resident reported on 17 November 2023 that the roof leak was not resolved. There is no evidence that she had pursued the matter prior to this following the repairs in February 2023. As such, the landlord would not have had the opportunity to identify that any further works were needed at an earlier date.
  5. As the resident had reported similar issues a few months prior, it would have been helpful for the landlord to consider its handling of the previous leaks when determining how to best proceed with the repairs.  However, it is unclear whether it would be able to do so due to the lack of detailed repair records. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report highlights that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
  6. The landlord said it attended on 21 November 2023 and identified that the weather seals had perished and needed replacing. It raised a work order to the contractor the same day, and advised the resident the contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment date within 5 working days. However, it failed to do so, and the resident chased the repair on 30 November 2023, which caused her further time and effort in pursuing the matter. It is important that landlords monitor the actions set out in complaint responses through to completion. Failure to do so not only delays resolving the substantive issue of the complaint, but it also has a detrimental impact on the resident’s trust in the landlord.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that the contractor had put the job on hold as it did not have the resident’s contact details. The landlord should have ensured that it provided all the relevant details to the contractor so they could promptly arrange the appointment. There is no evidence that there was any communication between the landlord and contractor regarding the issue, so the landlord may not have been aware of the reason for the delay. Regardless, the landlord should have sufficient oversight over repairs, particularly in cases where they are a resolution for a complaint, to be able to promptly identify and resolve such issues. The landlord subsequently proposed an appointment on 12 January 2024. Therefore, as it did not have the necessary systems in place to effectively monitor the repairs once referred to the contractor, it took 35 working days to arrange the appointment, which exceeded its response timeframe by 15 working days.
  8. The resident further escalated the complaint on 26 January 2024 as the landlord had not contacted her following the appointment. It is important that landlords keep residents reasonably updated on the progress of the repairs to manage their expectations. This would demonstrate that the landlord is taking accountability for the repairs, rather than placing the onus on the resident to pursue it.
  9. The landlord raised a further work order on 14 February 2024 to complete the roof repairs, and on 27 February 2024 to install scaffolding. The resident told the Service that the landlord installed scaffolding on 11 March 2024 and completed repairs to the roof on 17 April 2024. Therefore, following the appointment on 12 January 2024, it took the landlord 41 working days to arrange the necessary follow-on works, exceeding its 20-working day response timeframe. As scaffolding was required, there may be practical reasons why the landlord was unable to adhere to its repair timeframes. In such cases, it should provide the resident with frequent updates, which it failed to do.
  10. In cases where the landlord is unable to meet its repair timeframes, it should consider interim solutions to mitigate the impact on the resident. In the stage 3 response, the independent adjudicator highlighted that the landlord should have ensured the property was weatherproof and recommended it to arrange a temporary roof covering. This was a practical solution, but there is no evidence that it took such steps. This was entirely unreasonable, particularly as the stage 3 response would have raised the resident’s expectations.
  11. The resident told the Service on 13 May 2024 that further works were required to the front of the roof as there was a hole where birds entered. The Service has not seen any further repair records, so it is unclear what steps the landlord subsequently took. The landlord internally stated on 5 September 2024 that it had completed the works and removed the scaffolding. However, the resident told the Service on 17 December 2024 that the leak was ongoing, and the scaffolding was still in place.
  12. When there is a disagreement in the accounts regarding the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it had completed the repair work to a satisfactory standard. In this case, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to confirm it has resolved the leak in full. As a result, an order has been made below for it to complete an inspection and any necessary repairs to resolve the leak.
  13. The resident told the Service that the landlord often does not notify her of appointments before attending and does not use the correct contact details. It should ensure that it gives her sufficient notice when arranging the repairs and ensures it has the correct contact number to prevent any further delays.
  14. The resident reported damp and mould as a result of the leak. While it is recognised that the landlord would not be able to resolve the internal issues in full until it resolved the leak, it could have taken interim actions to limit the mould. The resident told the Service that the landlord completed a mould wash on 11 November 2024, but it had not reattended to complete follow-on works. It would have been appropriate to complete a mould wash at an earlier date. There is also no evidence the landlord provided a dehumidifier to control the damp, as recommended in the stage 3 response. The landlord therefore has not demonstrated it took sufficient actions to manage the damp and mould, in line with its policy.
  15. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was exposed to damp and mould in the property for a prolonged period as the landlord did not take any actions to address it while the leak was ongoing. This is of particular concern as the resident reported the mould was exacerbating her asthma and there is no evidence the landlord considered this in its handling of the matter.
  16. Overall, the landlord has not resolved the leak or the damp and mould issues in full for over a year. The landlord did not adhere to the recommendations made in the stage 3 response, so it missed an opportunity to resolve the issues at an earlier date. As a result, the resident experienced a prolonged impact of the leak, damp, and mould, which clearly caused her distress and inconvenience.
  17. The landlord offered a total of £250 compensation for the delays. This was not proportionate to the level of failing identified in this report. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in the investigation. Due to the extent of the delays, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £600 compensation.
  18. In her stage 3 escalation, the resident reported that the leak had damaged her belongings. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the matter. In line with the Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord must ensure that it addresses all elements of the resident’s complaint. In the evidence sent to the Service, the landlord said the resident had not informed it of any damage to her personal belongings, which is clearly not the case. An order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to inform her on how she can pursue this element of her complaint.
  19. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with the Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
  20. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £250 already offered, the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation. It must provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £850.
  2. The landlord should complete an inspection to ascertain the cause of the leak and complete any recommended repairs. It should provide a post inspection report to confirm it has resolved the leak.
  3. The landlord should complete a damp and mould inspection and provide a copy to the Service. It should then provide repair records to confirm it has completed the necessary internal repairs.
  4. The landlord should contact the resident. It should set out whether it accepts responsibility for the alleged damage to the resident’s belongings and whether it will reimburse her. If not, the landlord should provide the resident with details on how she can pursue a claim, should she wish to.
  5. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of the determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm her contact details and remove any outdated contact details from its records.