London Borough of Lewisham (202315835)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315835

Lewisham Council

28 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a leak and the associated damp and mould.
2. complaint.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a maisonette, which she has occupied since August 2017. It is unknown how many bedrooms the property has. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
On 16 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that, following recent damp repairs after a leak, there had been “new damage” to her property. She said she suspected “ongoing plumbing issues” from the flat above. She stated that her neighbour was “lying” that they had fixed the leak. She added that she was yet to be reimbursed for previous damage and that nothing was being done to resolve the “initial problem”. The landlord responded on the same day to say it had sent her report to its damp team. It contacted her again on 20 January 2023 to ask her if there was a leak in her property, and whether the ventilation and heating were working.
The resident responded on 27 January 2023 and stated that:
1. there was an “ongoing issue” since her neighbour refitted their bathroom. She had reported it “many times” but the landlord had done nothing to resolve it.
2. the leak was intermittent and there was a “a lot of damp and mould” around the stairwell area that had not been present before.
3. her carpet was “soaking wet and smelling of damp” and this was affecting her family’s mental and physical health.
4. the ventilation in her property was inadequate.
The landlord wrote back on 30 January 2023 and told the resident to contact its repairs team about the leak. It asked her to let it know when it was fixed so it could schedule a damp and mould inspection. It is unclear whether the landlord took any further action between February and July 2023. On 10 July 2023 the resident wrote to it to confirm that an operative was due to attend both her property and her neighbours. She stated that the landlord had already visited 19 times for the same issue and her ceiling, walls, carpet and flooring were all damaged. She told it that it should either order her neighbour to remove their bathroom or remove it itself.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023 to say she wanted to raise a complaint. We advised her to raise this directly with the landlord and follow its complaints process first. She stated that:
1. since January 2021 she had a severe leak into her property following “a botched bathroom refit” in the flat above.
2. she and one of her children had slipped down the stairs due to the water from the leak, and as the staircase had become warped. There was also damp and mould on the ceiling and walls.
3. when the housing officer visited her neighbour, they “promised” they would fix the leak but had not done so.
4. the landlord told her it could not repair the neighbour’s bathroom as it had not fitted it. However, she believed it had the authority to ensure they removed it.
5. in March 2023 contractors had carried out a mould wash and painted the affected area. However, it was in a worse condition than before.
6. the smell was “horrendous” and the ceiling was “at a point of collapsing any day”.
The resident wrote to us again on 18 August, 11 September and 7 November 2023 to say the landlord has still not acknowledged her complaint. She stated that, although contractors had resolved the leak in August 2023, the landlord had not addressed the damage. She stated that she had “complained over 30 times since February 2021” and was yet to receive a response. We contacted the landlord on 6 December 2023 to instruct it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 13 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 December 2023. It stated that its records indicated the resident had a current “live disrepair claim”. It said that, as the outstanding repairs formed part of the letter of claim, it could not investigate her stage 1 complaint. It advised her to communicate with her legal representative about any concerns she had.
On 10 January 2024, the resident responded to say the landlord’s stage 1 response was the first contact she had received since she first complained in February 2021. She stated that she wanted to escalate the complaint and added that:
1. she had “complained numerous times” until the landlord repaired her ceiling in October 2023.
2. despite contacting it “daily”, it took over 20 visits until her ceiling was repaired and redecorated.
3. it had done nothing else to repair the “extensive damage” to the wall, flooring, banister, wooden steps and carpet.
4. the leak resulted in her having to call the police as she had been “racially and verbally threatened” by her neighbours. The landlord had done nothing to help her and left her in an “extremely unsafe and vulnerable situation”.
5. her family fell down the stairs “on a weekly basis”.
6. she wanted compensation for the 3 years she and her children had “suffered physically, mentally emotionally” and for the “extensive damage” to her belongings.
The resident contacted us again on 3 October 2024 to say she had not received any response from the landlord to her escalation request. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord called the resident on 10 December 2024 to discuss her outstanding concerns. It issued its stage 2 response on 10 December 2024 and upheld her complaint. It stated that:
1. During its discussion with her, the resident had clarified that the damp and mould issues had been “resolved following treatment”.
2. There was evidence she had logged several complaints over the years dating back to 2018.
3. It had attempted to repair her banister in November 2023. However, when it attended on 22 December 2023, it was unable to gain access.
4. It had left a card at the property with instructions for the resident to call it and rearrange the appointment. As it had not received any further contact about this repair it closed the job.
5. Given the passage of time, it had arranged for an operative to inspect her damaged floor and banister on 18 December 2024.
6. If she was unable to make a claim for damage through her own content’s insurance provider, she could make a claim through its own insurer.
7. It was clear the impact of the leak and delays in completing repairs had had a “profound effect” on her family’s wellbeing, as well as the safety of her home.
8. It wanted to offer her £600 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience she had experienced over the previous 3 years.
9. It would review the remaining damage to her home and work with her to take the “appropriate course of action” to address the repairs.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 December 2024 because she:
1. was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered.
2. was unhappy with how the landlord had handled her case.
3. wanted it to complete the outstanding repairs and award her further redress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that she had been reporting a leak into her home from the property above from January 2021. Her comments are acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of the matter arising. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left the organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have used our discretion to focus our investigation on the period from 16 December 2022 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the more recent events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint. Any references to events prior to this are made to provide context.
The resident has stated that the condition of her property and the landlord’s lack of action has had a detrimental effect on the mental and physical health of her family. We note the resident’s concerns about this matter. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident has requested compensation for damage to personal belongings. We can consider the impact of the outstanding repairs, and damp and mould on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about awards for damages. As above, this matter is better suited to an insurance claim or the courts.

Legal and policy framework

Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act, and the resident’s tenancy agreement state that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the building. This includes walls and ceilings. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Repairs should be lasting and effective. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” and properly ventilated.
The landlord has a damp, mould and leaks policy which sets out several commitments and responsibilities. These include:
1. treating all reports of leaks, damp, and mould seriously.
2. asking key questions to help determine the cause of a leak, damp, or mould and following this up with remedial action to resolve the problem.
3. communicating clearly and keeping residents informed of what action it will be taking, why it is taking it, and when it will do it.
4. offering an alternative interim solution or advice and support to limit the impact if it is unable to take immediate action to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it adopts a “right first time” approach and proactively manages repairs to the resident does not have to chase them. Wherever practicable, it aims to complete repairs in a single visit to minimise disruption to the resident. The same policy sets out the following 3 responsive repair categories and response times:
1. Emergency – within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – within 3 working days.
3. Routine – within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation, reimbursements and remedies procedure emphasise the importance of accurate record keeping to ensure consistency in awarding compensation. It makes payments of between £10 and £50 for residents’ time and trouble taking forward their complaints. It also pays amounts of up to £1,000 depending on the impact of identified failings on residents. Although the policy compensates for room loss as a result of delays in completing repairs, this excludes hallways.
The landlord’s complaints policy effective at the time of the complaint states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It sets out the following 3 stages and response times:
1. stage 1 –within 10 working days.
2. stage 2 – within 20 working days.
3. stage 3 – within 20 working days.
For stage 1 and 2 complaints the policy states that, if it cannot respond withing the above times, it will let the resident know and give the reason for the delay. Any extensions will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Reports of a leak and the associated damp and mould

In response to our request for evidence, the landlord provided limited information. The contemporaneous records of correspondence with the resident are minimal, and we have seen no correspondence between the landlord and its contractors. The landlord’s repair logs are unclear and do not include details of most of the repairs mentioned during the period covered by the complaint.
Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any inspection reports or details of findings and recommendations from surveys. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, if the landlord has failed to provide it or if the landlord failed to keep appropriate records. We were mostly limited to the information included in the correspondence provided and the landlord’s stage 2 response. For this reason, it has been difficult for us to fully establish what steps the landlord took to address the resident’s reports. This has been considered in more detail later in this report.
Our spotlight report ‘Damp and mould. It’s not lifestyle’, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident
It also advises that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments. One individual or team should have overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare.
The resident has stated that she first reported a leak in or around February 2021. She says she considers this to have started after her neighbour had replaced their bathroom. We have not seen any contemporaneous records of reports from this time. However, the landlord has not disputed that the resident was reporting the matter for 3 years.
The records show that the leak was coming from the ceiling of the resident’s stairwell, and falling onto the stairs, banister and floor. She also stated that the water ingress was causing the walls and ceilings in the area to become damp and develop mould. As the landlord has not provided details of any inspections it had carried out, it has not been possible to corroborate what the resident had reported. However, she provided the landlord with photographs of the affected areas.
The evidence suggests that the landlord had completed damp repairs around November/December 2022. However, there are no records to show the date it completed them or what the repairs were. Furthermore, we have not seen any details of any associated pre- or post-inspections to ascertain what prompted those works or the actions the landlord took leading up to them. This is evidence of poor record keeping. As such, we were unable to conclude the landlord acted in a timely manner to the resident’s reports or that it reasonably progressed repairs in line with its repairs policy.
On 16 December 2022, following the above mentioned repairs, the resident reported that there was still an intermittent leak from the property above, and associated damp. This indicates the previous repairs were not lasting and effective, or that the source of the problem had yet to be identified and resolved.
Our spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. It states that this will help landlords identify hidden issues before a complaint or disrepair claim is made.
The landlord has not provided any records to show it had assessed the severity of the damp or the impact of the conditions on the resident. Given the previous reports of leaks from the neighbouring property, it would have been reasonable for it to have assessed any possible risks shortly after receiving the resident’s report. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord had not considered whether this should have been raised as an urgent repair. Due to its poor record keeping, the landlord has not demonstrated that it assessed the impact of the conditions on the resident to inform its repair approach. This was a missed opportunity to consider what it could do to mitigate the distress and inconvenience of this on the resident while it sought to make a lasting and effective repair.
The resident stated that the landlord had visited her property 19 times but had failed resolve the leak. We have not been provided with any evidence relating to these visits. However, the landlord’s repair log states that it had repaired the leak on 17 July 2023, nearly 5 months after the resident first reported it. This was significantly outside its 20 working day timescale for routine repairs and therefore a departure from its repairs policy. It is unclear why it could not have completed the work sooner. Due to the lack of records, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that the delay was unavoidable.
The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward. It is acknowledged there can be physical challenges, or it can be a matter of ruling out causes until the source is identified. However, where obstacles are identified or a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source of a leak is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented.
The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the leak and complete a repair. Furthermore, it failed to evidence that it had taken reasonable steps to follow its repairs policy by trying to keep disruption to a minimum.
Landlords should reasonably give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take. They should also keep residents regularly updated and informed. Such action is recommended in our guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is also one of the commitments and responsibilities in the landlord’s damp, mould and leaks policy.
The landlord provided very limited records of correspondence with the resident. It has therefore failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident updated her on the progress of the repair. There is no indication it had tried to reassure her it was addressing the issue. Furthermore, we have not seen evidence it had made reasonable efforts to respond to her enquiries. Understandably, the delays combined with poor communication would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. There are records to show she had spent unnecessary time and trouble to chase the landlord for updates, which should not have been necessary given its repair obligations.
It is noted that, when the resident reminded the landlord on 27 January 2023 of the ongoing intermittent leak, it directed her to its repairs team. It then told her to let it know when it had fixed the leak so it could carry out a damp and mould inspection.
Once the resident had reported the issue, the landlord should not have put the onus on her to pass the information on to its repairs team or to remind the landlord to inspect her property. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate it had properly monitored the repair and its lack of any effective internal communication was a failing. The resident had to continuously prompt the landlord about the outstanding repair while experiencing the ongoing impacts of the damp and mould. The landlord’s poor communication and lack of customer focus would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. We note there are no records to show the landlord had arranged an inspection following completion of the repair. This is further evidence of poor record keeping.
We accept that contractors might not be able to attend appointments due to capacity issues or busy periods, and their services are in high demand. However, the landlord’s contractors are accountable to its service agreement to enable it to complete repairs within a reasonable time. As mentioned, the landlord has not made available any records of correspondence with its contractors. There is therefore no evidence of effective contract monitoring to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with its repairs policy. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it was taking reasonable steps to progress the repair and to explain its delays to the resident.
There is evidence that contractors were unable to gain access to the property to complete a repair to the resident’s banister. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of her responsibilities as a tenant is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property. This is to enable it to meet its repairs obligations.
The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, we cannot consider delays to repairs being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out required works in a timely manner.
Our spotlight report states that landlords should ensure that, “where significant works are required, smaller remedial works such as mould washes/anti-mould paint that will improve the resident’s living environment are still completed”. The resident told us that, in March 2023, the landlord carried out a “mould spray” of the affected area and painted it. As the landlord has provided no record of this work, it was not possible to establish the date it was completed. Nevertheless, it was appropriate that it took this interim measure while waiting for the leak to be repaired. However, it has not provided any evidence it took any other steps to offer “an alternative interim solution or advice and support to limit the impact” of the damp and mould.
The resident told us that her stairs were unsafe due to the leak and that she had on one occasion fallen down the “wet stairs” and “damaged” her back. It is unclear whether she had made the landlord aware of this. However, in her escalation request she told the landlord that she and her children fell on the stairs on a “weekly basis”. It is therefore evident the resident had made the landlord aware of the risks and impact the continuing leak was having on her family and their safety.
There is no evidence the landlord had assessed the safety of the resident’s stairs. Furthermore, there is no indication it considered whether there was any appropriate advice or support it could offer. We have seen nothing to suggest it had considered offering to supply dehumidifiers or offering advice and support on minimising the impacts of the damp and mould. Furthermore, it has not provided any records to show it had considered carrying out any interim works to ensure the property was safe and more comfortable while it was investigating the leak. This was a repeated theme we noted during the landlord’s approach to the repairs.
The landlord should have been able to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to consider the vulnerabilities of the household. That it did not was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it did this and is also further evidence of consistently poor record keeping.
When a landlord is made aware of a household’s vulnerabilities, it would be reasonable for it to take these into account when considering whether to prioritise a repair or inspection. The landlord’s lack of action in this regard would only have supported the resident’s belief that it was not taking her concerns seriously or responding to them with any urgency. Given it had been made aware of the resident’s concerns about her children, the lack of any evidence that it had considered conducting appropriate safety checks was a failing.
In her escalation request, the resident said she was seeking compensation for damage inside her property, including to her carpet and flooring, and “belongings”. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acted appropriately by advising her that she could make a claim for the damage to belongings through its insurer. It also provided her with the contact information of its insurance team.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
We acknowledge the landlord made some attempts to put things right. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged the impact of the delays on the household. It offered the resident £600 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and for the “emotional toll” the issue had taken on her and her family.
The Code states that, where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this in its stage 2 response. It must set out the actions it has already taken or intends to take to put things right. These can include apologising, providing an explanation, assistance, or reasons, and changing policies, procedures or practices.
It was appropriate that the landlord set out that it would carry out an inspection and complete any outstanding repairs. However, it did not give any explanation for the delays or offer an apology for its failings. In particular, it did not acknowledge that it had not taken the family’s vulnerabilities into account or that it gave appropriate regard to the resident’s safety concerns. To recognise this, and the associated distress and inconvenience, the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation. Furthermore, it made no attempt to show how it had learnt from the complaint or to provide details of any actions it would take to improve its services.
Given the extent of the failures, we have made a finding of maladministration. We will order additional redress to put things right. The landlord’s failings left the resident and her family to experience the ongoing impacts of a leak and associated damp and mould for longer than necessary.

Complaint handling

The resident told us that she had originally raised her complaint in February 2021 and had received no response from the landlord. Although we do not dispute what she has said, neither she nor the landlord were able to provide any records of this. The first indication we have seen that the resident wanted to raise a complaint was when she contacted the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023. Following this, we were not provided with evidence that she raised this with the landlord directly. On balance and giving fair consideration to the absence of evidence concerning this matter, we could not be satisfied that the landlord failed to progress the resident’s complaint in July 2023.
Following our intervention on6 December 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 20 December 2023.This was 11 days later. However, in its response, it stated that it was unable to investigate her stage 1 complaint because she had a “live disrepair claim”. It advised her to communicate with her legal representative.
The Ombudsman issued guidance for landlords on the pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims and service complaints in October 2021. This states that, when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that they do not disengage from either the complaints process or the repair issue itself. It says that “commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings, and alternative dispute resolution can be pursued at any stage of the protocol. Our view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been ‘issued’.”
Furthermore, our spotlight report on damp and mould states that it remains the individual’s choice to pursue legal action. However, the pre-action protocol on housing conditions encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution. Closing the complaints process once the protocol commences is a missed opportunity to use the process it to its fullest potential and resolve issues in a less adversarial way.
Despite repeated requests, the landlord has not provided us with any evidence about the resident’s disrepair claim. However, the records suggest that no proceedings were issued on her behalf. On this basis the landlord should have continued investigating the resident’s complaint and provided her with a substantive response while the matter was not subject to court proceedings. That the landlord had not given proper regard to the complaint at this time hindered the resident’s access to the complaints process. This was a failing and would have caused her avoidable time and trouble of having to unnecessarily pursue the matter through her legal representative.
The records show that the resident escalated her complaint on 10 January 2024. However, there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged it until further intervention by the Ombudsman in November 2024. It was not until 10 December 2024, nearly a year later, that the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We expect landlords to progress complaints through its complaint procedure without our intervention. That it did not do so was a failing that caused the resident time and trouble seeking our support.
The Code expects landlords to communicate and engage with residents through the complaints process. There is no evidence the landlord communicated to the resident about the complaint until we contacted it. This demonstrates a breakdown in the landlord’s system for logging and tracking complaints. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and then took 11 months to respond to her complaint. This was a significant failure in its complaint handling and a departure from the Code.
The Code also requires landlords to undertake thorough investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. As part of her escalation request, the resident mentioned she had been “racially and verbally threatened” by her neighbour and that the landlord had not helped her and had left her in an “extremely unsafe and vulnerable situation”. There is no evidence it had investigated this matter. That the landlord failed to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint was a further failing.
In its stage 2 response the landlord did not acknowledge its protracted complaint handling. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge its lack of response to her escalation request until the Ombudsman intervened. Its repeated failure to follow its complaints process, the Code or guidance left the resident with the additional distress and inconvenience of having to pursue her complaint for significantly longer than necessary. She should not have had to spend avoidable time and trouble over a period of 11 months trying to get a response. In recognition of the landlord’s consistently poor complaint handling the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.
We will order that it apologises for its failures and pays the resident £250 redress in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ to put things right.

Record Keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
As referenced frequently throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)’ states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence the landlord provided to this Service in response to our requests for information was severely lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019 stresses the importance of landlord’s and its contractors keeping comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In this case, the landlord has failed to keep appropriate records. Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord significantly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management. It would also explain its failure in responding to the residents reports in a timely manner and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
This investigation has identified failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record keeping which are 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 us following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
Furthermore, 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 (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident in line with our Apologies Guidance, which is available on our website. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. pay the resident £1,050 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is calculated as follows:
  1. £600 it offered in its stage 2 response for the delays in responding to her reports of a leak.
  2. £200 in recognition of its failure to consider the household’s vulnerabilities.
  3. £250 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
If it has not done so already the landlord should carry out a full inspection of the property within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It should ensure this is carried out by persons suitably qualified to assess any:
1. potential risks to the household from the damp and mould, and associated damage and steps to mitigate those risks. This should give due regard to any vulnerabilities within the household.
2. outstanding works required to prevent damp and mould.
3. works required to improve ventilation within the property.
4. other outstanding works the resident had raised during the period covered by the complaint. It must also provide a schedule of works with associated timeframes for completion to us and the resident.
Once it has completed the repairs survey, and within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must use its best endeavours to complete the repairs. Following this, the landlord must consider whether offering further compensation is appropriate to recognise any detriment to the resident for any further delays in completing any repairs it had raised as part of its inspection.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a review of the complaint handling in this case to establish why the landlord failed to acknowledge or follow up on the resident’s escalation request. It should look at any potential breakdowns in its complaint handling system and/or process that resulted in this failure and consider putting measures in place to prevent this from happening in future. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with us within the timescale set out above.