London Borough of Lewisham (202440401)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440401

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A roof leak and damp and mould reports.
2. Reports of water pressure loss.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a one-bedroom, first floor flat with her young child and baby. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. Through her complaint to the landlord, she clearly stated she had been suffering with low mood, received counselling for depression, and was pregnant.
The resident provided us with evidence of her initial complaint dated 11 September 2024. This concerned the continuing loss of water pressure and a roof leak which affected her bedroom. She said the landlord had been out twice to assess the leak, but there was no resolution. She said she was pregnant and struggling to cope with this stress. The resident added to this complaint on 20 September 2024 when she said the lack of water was severely impacting her life. She had to buy bottled water to complete daily tasks, but she could not use this to shower, wash her hair and hands. The resident complained that the issue had been going on for years.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 October 2024 after it requested an extension. It partially upheld the complaint. The landlord apologised for the issues the resident raised. It acknowledged the resident said the water pressure had been a problem since 2018 and was becoming a daily occurrence. It booked an inspection for 9 October 2024. It would not drop bottled water off for the resident. The landlord scheduled a mould wash for 17 and 18 October 2024. It said damp and mould may be linked to the roof leak reported in March 2024, it had approved the repairs for this. It awarded the resident £70 for the delay and inconvenience, and £30 for her time, trouble, and distress.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 November 2024, she said the landlord had not resolved the issues. She was heavily pregnant, and the situation affected her mental health. She had no running water and when it did work, it was the bare minimum. She was disappointed the landlord did not agree to a water drop off and she asked the landlord to cover the arrears and ongoing costs of her water bill. She asked if the landlord’s proposed resolution of re–routing the mains water pipes would happen. She said there were already cracks and damp over the new paint following the mould wash and despite asking, the landlord had not given her a timescale for a resolution.
The landlord responded on 10 January 2025. It apologised the mould wash was ineffective. It said it hoped the damp and mould would improve when the windows were replaced. The landlord organised a visit on 16 January 2025 to assess the damp and mould and fit a bathroom fan. It had not agreed to the proposed re-routing of the mains supply and a contractor was carrying out a pressure test on 10 January 2025. The landlord said it would write to the resident with the findings and the next steps. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £250 for her distress, time, and trouble.
The resident remains unhappy. She told us she is still experiencing water pressure loss and damp and mould. The resident believes the property is unrepairable, so as a resolution she would like the landlord to move her to a 2-bedroom property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We have seen the landlord’s historical property repair reports. While noting the historical issues, this investigation will only address the period approximately 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint in September 2024. This is because as issues become historical, evidence becomes increasingly difficult to obtain, and this effects our ability to undertake an evidence-based investigation. We have therefore made the decision to focus on the events from September 2023.
In addition to the above, the resident in her escalation request asked the landlord to cover the arrears on her water bill and to continue to pay until it resolves the issue. The resident sent us an email from an employee of the landlord dated 2019 which said they agreed with the resident not paying the water bill and would vouch for the time she had been living with the issue. Whether or not the landlord should have honoured this agreement is outside of the scope of our investigation. We will, however, consider whether the landlord responded to this fairly in its final response.
In resolution of the complaint, the resident advised us that she would like to be moved. While we empathise with the resident’s situation, this is not an order we would make. This is because we would not order a remedy that could result in other residents on the housing transfer list being disadvantaged. Without assessing the landlord’s transfer list, we would be unable to establish whether there are others with greater priority than the resident in this case, and therefore whether ordering a transfer would result in a poor outcome for someone else.

The landlord’s handling of a roof leak and damp and mould reports.

The landlord’s evidence shows its contractor carried out an inspection on 5 September 2023. The contractor identified damp and mould issues and reported this to the landlord, who asked the resident for photos. The resident cannot recall sending photos in. We have not seen evidence the landlord received any, or that it chased the resident for them. This would have delayed the progress of this being resolved. It is unclear why the landlord’s contractor did not take photos of the issues they identified. This would have given the landlord an accurate depiction of the extent of the issue. This was a missed opportunity to progress the issue.
The resident complained to the landlord on 11 September 2024 that her daughter woke up soaking wet from the roof leak in the bedroom. In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 4 October 2024 it advised it had approved the repair work the day before, this was after the resident reported the roof leak in March 2024. The target for the landlord to complete the repair was 20 working days. In the landlord’s evidence we can see it completed this on 31 October 2024. This left the resident and her child living with a leak in their only bedroom for 6 months longer than its target.
After the contractor noted the damp and mould, we have seen no evidence the landlord or resident raised this again until they held conversations for the stage 1 investigation. The landlord completed the mould wash as it agreed in its stage 1 response. On 21 October 2024 it identified installing a bathroom extractor fan would eliminate the mould. The landlord raised this as an urgent repair on 10 January 2025, to be completed in 3 working days. The landlord scheduled to install it on 16 January 2025. We have seen evidence there was a problem with this as the fan could not be fitted in neither the wall nor window. The landlord asked the contractor to fit it, but the resident advised us this has still not happened.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord did not deal with this matter reasonably. It took over 2.5 months to raise the repair and when it did, it did not meet its repairs target. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord’s contractor was faced with an obstacle when they tried to fit the fan, but it does not appear that the landlord sought a workaround to progress the resolution for the resident. The resident confirmed to us that the landlord has still not installed it or offered an alternative.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states where it is unable to take immediate action to fully resolve the issue, it may offer an alternative interim solution to limit the impact until it can offer a more permanent solution. In this situation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering the resident a dehumidifier, especially given the resident was pregnant and had a child sleeping in the room. We have seen no evidence the landlord considered any interim solutions to limit the impact.
The landlord noted on 20 September 2024 the resident was vulnerable as she was pregnant, however we have not seen any evidence it considered a change of approach because of this. We are pleased to see the landlord completed an inspection on 16 January 2025 to ensure the property was habitable. However, given the vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable to have carried this out at an earlier time while the roof leak was an issue.
In the landlord’s self-assessment, it says it tracks damp and mould cases in its weekly meetings. It also says it has developed its policy, procedure, and process to ensure its responses to damp and mould are timely, and weekly reporting ensures the landlord responds effectively. In this case, we have not seen evidence this was adequate to ensure the resident’s case progressed.
In the final response letter, the landlord said it was sorry the mould wash was ineffective but that it should help when the windows are replaced. It was remeasuring for the windows on 15 January 2025. We have seen no evidence the landlord has replaced the windows and during our conversation with the resident, she did not know whether the landlord would do this or not. The landlord’s repairs and damp and mould policies state it will keep the resident informed. We have not seen evidence it did this. The landlord continued to say it would complete a visual inspection on 16 January 2025. It found condensation on the bathroom window and mould in different rooms in the flat. We have not seen the landlord advised how it would resolve this, or of any action it expects the resident to take.
We noted the repair progress coincided with the complaint responses. The landlord agreed to the roof leak repairs the day before the stage 1 complaint response and it raised the bathroom fan repair on the day of the final response letter. This may be indicative that the complaint was progressing the repairs rather than the normal repairs route.
The landlord was proactive in identifying the existence of damp and mould and the need for a bathroom fan however this was not progressed. The landlord has not demonstrated that it fully worked in line with its damp and mould and repairs policy. The resident’s damp and mould concerns remain, and it resolved the roof leak 6 months late. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof leak and damp and mould reports.
To put things right, while we are unable to order it to move the resident, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer further compensation and to respond further to the damp and mould issue.
The landlord is to advise whether it will install new windows and the bathroom fan in the property. If not, it is to provide its alternative proposal for resolving the damp and mould issues.
We have calculated the compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation, reimbursement, and remedies policy. This totals £1,145.82.
1. For the inconvenience and distress experienced due to the landlord’s failings in relation to the roof leak, damp and mould, we have awarded £500. This is in the landlord’s range for a high impact to the resident.
2. For the roof leak into the bedroom, we awarded the resident £274.78. We have calculated this as the net rent of £101.77 for 27 weeks (20 working days from the date of the resident’s report of the leak, so 25 April 2024-31 October 2024). We have awarded the resident 10% of this.
3. For the damp and mould, we awarded the resident £371.04. We have calculated this as the net rent of £101.77 for 19 weeks and net rent of £104.52 for 17 weeks (20 working days from the date when the landlord should have installed the bathroom fan on 21 October 2024 to present). We have awarded the resident 10%.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water pressure loss.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement says it will “keep in good repair all installations for the supply of water.”
In the landlord’s evidence it refers to the property as having had faults with low water pressure since 2013. It also shows the resident has been complaining of no or low water pressure since 2018. Previously the landlord had provided the resident with bottled water. It also investigated with the local water company in February 2020. We have therefore seen that the landlord had historically taken some steps to try and resolve this matter.
The resident reported further problems with water pressure in 2021 and 2022. The landlord completed a job to repair loose bath taps on 14 December 2023. It noted the mains water pressure was low and the resident said sometimes it stopped completely. This was positive proactive work by the operative. Unfortunately, we have not seen any evidence the landlord progressed this. In the operative’s notes, it said, “I don’t know how she hasn’t put in a massive complaint.” It was a missed opportunity as the next contact about the water pressure was the resident’s complaint and left the resident living with an intermittent water supply for longer.
In its stage 1 response the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint as a service request and arranged an inspection which took place on 8 October 2024. The landlord identified the resident’s water supply dropped whenever other flats use water, sometimes resulting in no water. It recognised contractors had been previously, but they had not resolved the issue. The landlord suggested rerouting the mains as then “at least the tennant [sic] will have water.” This was a positive solution–focussed suggestion.
The resident was aware of this possible solution and chased the landlord in her escalation request dated 5 November 2024. She highlighted it had been 4 weeks, and she had not heard anything. We saw evidence that one staff member tried to progress this solution. The landlord’s evidence shows on 13 November 2024 it asked a contractor to complete a full pressure test as it was not convinced about the proposed rerouting. We have not seen the reasons for this or that it advised the resident, however we have seen she continued to chase. The first time we have seen the landlord responded to this was 3 months after, in its final response letter, when it said it had not agreed to rerouting the mains. We also did not see the resident was aware of the full pressure test until its final response letter. The lack of communication is likely to have undermined the landlord-tenant relationship and left the resident feeling it was not progressing the repair, leading to frustration.
The landlord raised the full pressure test as a 20-working day priority, so it should have completed this by 12 December 2024. The landlord chased the contractor on 10 January 2025 who said they were going out that day. This meant the contractor completed this 18 working days late which was outside the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. Again, we noted this progress coincided with the complaint response. The landlord chased the pressure test on the day of its final response letter, despite the repair being a month overdue. As with the roof leak and damp and mould case, this may be indicative that the repairs may not have been progressed if the resident had not had the complaint open. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will proactively manage repairs. We have not seen evidence the landlord achieved this.
In its final response letter, the landlord said it would write to the resident with the pressure test findings. We have not seen evidence the landlord did this and the resident told us she has not heard anything since the contractor’s visit. This was poor customer service.
When we asked the landlord for confirmation it had resolved the issue, it provided a copy of the contractor’s report. This indicated it believed it had resolved the issue. The landlord’s records show the contractor experienced the low water pressure. They knocked the water meter and cleared it out, ran the water for a further 30 minutes getting a satisfactory reading of 4 bars. They did not give any recommendations or follow up work. The resident reported to us that the contractor witnessed a further drop in pressure and believed it was going to recommend follow up work to the landlord. The landlord was aware the issue is intermittent, with the resident and its operatives advising this. To rely on the contractor having had a reading of 4 bars for a period of 30 minutes is not satisfactory and is contrary to its prior knowledge of the issue. Therefore, a further inspection will be ordered.
In the resident’s escalation request she asked the landlord to cover her arrears with the water company and to continue to pay until it resolved the issue. The landlord did not respond but should have addressed this in its final response letter. It should have either addressed this point or advised if it was not going to. By not responding to this, the resident was unaware of where the landlord stood on this matter and would have resulted in frustration for her.
The landlord advised in its stage 1 response it would not do a water drop to the resident as it only provided this for emergencies lasting over an hour. The resident says in her escalation request she would be calling daily if the landlord required this. The resident highlighted that she cannot predict when the loss of water will occur or for how long. She is aware the water will come back on, so it seems reasonable for her not to call the landlord each time. However, this does not negate the resident’s need for an alternative supply of water given how frequently the pressure failed.
The resident’s assessment that she would be calling daily shows the scale of disruption she experienced. The landlord identified that whenever other flats use water, the resident’s water pressure dropped. Therefore, the landlord should have recognised this would be a frequent, daily occurrence. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to fully consider the impact of an unpredictable water supply on the resident and her family. There are regular problems, such as being halfway through a shower when the water stops or the washing machine stopping midcycle. These issues could make dealing with the intermittent issue harder than a total loss which brings with it the landlord’s offer of water, its commitment to resolving the issue in 1 working day, and the possibility of alternative accommodation.
We have not seen evidence the landlord recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities. She was very clear about the impact and her vulnerabilities including her pregnancy and having a young child in the property.
We have not seen evidence the landlord:
1. Demonstrated it made reasonable efforts to resolve the persistent low water pressure issues which it acknowledged has been an issue since 2013. Especially in light of the resident’s circumstances.
2. Investigated the low water pressure in line with its repair policy.
3. Consistently provided responses to the resident, for example it was delayed in giving answers about the proposed mains rerouting, the water bill query, and providing the contractor’s report to her.
4. Assessed the vulnerabilities.
5. Adequately appreciated the unpredictability and frequency of the resident’s water supply. It did not fully consider the impact the loss of water was having, and whether it could be reasonable to offer temporary accommodation.
These failings meant the resident has been living with water pressure loss for a significant period. We appreciate this is a complicated issue for the landlord to resolve, however the resident experienced a lack of progress in the repair and her situation has not improved. The lack of progress and understanding of the resident’s circumstances is likely to have further undermined the landlord tenant relationship. The landlord’s compensation offer of £250 did not proportionately address the failings we have identified in this report. In accordance with the Scheme we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water pressure loss.
The landlord’s compensation, reimbursements and remedies procedure says compensation should be awarded for every day the resident was without water after the first day and continues to be paid until the supply is restored. The landlord’s policy does not specify how much compensation it awards for situations like this. It is common practice, nevertheless, for social landlords to award an amount of £5 per day where there is a loss of water. As such, we have awarded the resident half of this, at £2.50 per day that the issue remained unresolved. This recognises the intermittent nature of the issue she experienced. This has been calculated 4 weeks from 23 December 2023, so from 12 January 2024 to present. This is 566 days and totals £1,415.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord correctly requested to extend the stage 1 deadline when it realised it had not assigned the complaint to the right team.
Paragraph 1.13 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states residents must be able to raise their complaints in any way and with any member of staff. All staff must be aware of the complaints process and be able to pass details of the complaint to the appropriate person within the landlord. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 5 November 2024. She chased for a response on 8 November. The landlord responded on 11 November 2024. It advised the resident to escalate the complaint she needed to use a different email address. This was likely to have been frustrating for the resident as it created an unnecessary obstacle and was not in line with the Code.
On 10 December 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The landlord was right to apologise for this. It had not acted in line with its complaints policy which states it will respond to the resident’s escalation request in 5 working days.
We recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer of compensation. Through this report we assessed the landlord’s response and as such reassessed the compensation due.
While we acknowledge the landlord should have accepted the resident’s complaint escalation on 5 November 2024, this did not substantially change the impact for the resident. The landlord also evidenced good complaint handling as it contacted the resident and apologised when it got things wrong. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak and damp and mould reports.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water pressure loss.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £2,560.82. This is inclusive of the £250 payment offered to the resident by the landlord. This comprises of:
1. £274.78 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her property during the repair delays to the roof leak.
2. £371.04 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her property due to the damp and mould.
3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the damp and mould.
4. £1,415 for the water pressure loss.
The landlord is to advise both the resident and us whether it will install new windows in the property and whether there will be a fan in the bathroom window. If not, it is to update the resident and us with its alternative proposal for resolving the damp and mould issues.
The landlord is to complete a further inspection into the water pressure. This is to be over a week to ensure confidence in the findings. The landlord is to:
1. Identify if the water pressure needs to be improved.
2. If so, how it will do this and what timescales it will do this in.
3. Share the outcome of this with the resident and us.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should contact the resident to support her with a rehousing application.