Southwark Council (202422153)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first-floor flat in a low-rise block. He reported an external leak affecting his property, as well as damp and mould in his hallway and bedroom. The resident told us he has respiratory issues, but the landlord has no record of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports and the associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord failed to act promptly or communicate effectively regarding severe damp and mould issues. It delayed in creating an action plan after the inspection and has not carried out the works identified following an inspection.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord incorrectly stated that legal proceedings had commenced under the pre-action protocol and failed to progress the complaint until we got involved. There were delays in issuing its stage 2 response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

8. We reviewed from the most recent report of damp and mould from November 2023 and what the landlord did after its stage 2 complaint response, up to the date of this report as the problems are still ongoing. It is therefore reasonable for us to assess its ongoing actions as part of this investigation.
9. The landlord recorded that the resident sought financial compensation, considering the damage to his flat, his belongings, and his health. It would be fairer and more effective for the resident to pursue a personal injury claim for any health-related issues. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have looked at

10. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool which identifies potential hazards within dwellings. One such hazard is damp and mould. Hazards categorised as Category 1 hazards are a serious and immediate risk and Category 2 hazards are a less serious risk.
11. Landlords must understand its obligations under the HHSRS. When it identifies a hazard, it inspects and monitors the home. It carries out inspections as soon as possible after a report. It follows up on recommendations and takes action. It also communicates clearly with residents about expectations and timescales for the work.
12. When the resident reported damp and mould, the landlord had no separate policy. Its repairs guide states it responds to non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. It also states it inspects reports of damp and mould within 20 working days to decide the best course of action.
13. The resident first reported damp and mould in the hallway, cupboard, and bedroom on 24 November 2023. The landlord arranged an inspection for 28 December 2023, 22 working days later. This was outside its 20-day target.
14. The landlord attended on 28 December 2023, but there was no access. It would have been reasonable for it to consider arranging another appointment with the resident, but there is no evidence it did.
15. On 3 January 2024, the landlord carried out a mould wash and returned on 9 January 2024 but the resident refused further works and asked for a full inspection. This was understandable considering the previous inspection did not take place. As part of the follow-on works, the landlord carried out works to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans in January and February 2024.
16. The resident logged a complaint on 4 April 2024. We have not seen the complaint, but the landlord’s acknowledgement on 5 April said the resident wanted the flat made liveable, outstanding jobs finished, and the leak resolved.
17. On 3 May 2024, the resident’s solicitor issued a letter of claim for disrepair relating to a roof leak and damp and mould in the bedroom, hallway, and kitchen. The landlord handled the claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims.
18. As part of the Pre-Action Protocol, the resident’s solicitor asked a surveyor to inspect the property and provide an independent report. The inspection was carried out on 22 May 2024. The inspection found severe penetrating damp and mould throughout the bedroom, hallway, and hall cupboards. It also identified serious hazards in the bedroom and hallway, categorising them as category 1 under the HHSRS due to health risks, including respiratory problems and mental wellbeing concerns.
19. In the survey’s opinion, it said that the landlord did not meet its responsibilities to maintain the property in a safe and suitable condition. It also recommended providing temporary accommodation to the resident.
20. In September 2024, the resident’s solicitor and the landlord agreed to settle the residents claim in full and final settlement without the need to proceed to Issue Court Proceedings. The offer for damages in the sum of £2,900.00. The settlement required the landlord to finish all works listed in the survey within 120 days from the date the resident accepted the offer. The landlord had accepted to carry out the repairs listed in the schedule of works from the survey of May 2024. While it is not clear when the resident accepted the offer, it is clear the landlord failed to meet this deadline.
21. In May 2025, the landlord agreed additional compensation of £570 in full and final settlement of any claim arising from the delay in the works since 20 February 2025, until the completion of the works to include both general and special damages and any claim for interest. It also promised to finish the works within 120 days from the settlement date. We do not consider this fully recognises the failings and impact on the resident.
22. The resident first reported damp and mould in November 2023, and the issue remains unresolved more than 2 years later. Despite repeated visits and temporary measures such as mould washes and extractor fans, the landlord failed to identify and resolve the damp and mould in line with its repairs guide. By May 2024, it was aware the resident might need temporary accommodation, yet there is no evidence it considered this option. During this time, the resident lived with a category 1 hazard under the HHSRS, which posed serious health risks and left him in unsafe and unsuitable conditions. He explained that the upcoming Christmas would be the third spent in a home affected by damp and mould, and his daughter’s wedding in October 2025 could not be celebrated at his property.
23. The prolonged delays caused significant disruption and distress. The resident had to move belongings from a damp-affected storage cupboard into a bedroom and eventually placed them in external storage, adding further inconvenience and cost. He also reported ongoing respiratory health concerns, which compounded his vulnerability and the impact of the landlord’s failings. Living with uncertainty about when repairs would be completed created further distress and loss of enjoyment of his home. These circumstances demonstrate the seriousness of the landlord’s failure to provide a safe and habitable property.
24. To recognise this impact, we order the landlord to pay compensation equal to 20% of the resident’s rent from 20 February 2025 to 30 November 2025 (We have calculated from 20 February 2025 as the first settlement offer it made covered until that period). This reflects the loss of enjoyment and shows the landlord failed to meet standards under its repairs guide.
25. Although the landlord agreed to 2 settlements which fell in between its complaint period, these did not fully address the impact of its failings and we do not consider the second offer reasonable redress. Our Remedies Guidance states that where there has been severe, long-term impact and serious failings by the landlord, a finding of severe maladministration is appropriate. Had it acted promptly after its stage 2 response and alongside the settlements, we would have found maladministration. However, the landlord has still not started the works identified in the May 2024 survey, further demonstrating its failure to put things right and learn from outcomes.

26. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024).
27. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy at the time stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. These timeframes were not compliant with the Code when the resident made his complaint, although the landlord has since updated its policy to comply with the Code.
28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 April 2024, the day after it was logged, which was in line with its policy. However, on 13 October 2024, the landlord told the resident that because he had taken legal action, its legal disrepair team would oversee the case and any queries should be directed to that team. This was not in line with the Code.
29. The Code states that a complaint can only be excluded when legal proceedings have started, which is defined as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim being filed at court. Both the landlord and the resident confirmed that legal proceedings were not issued, yet the landlord incorrectly told the resident that he had taken legal action.
30. We contacted the landlord on 17 January 2025 and asked it to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days, by 3 February 2025. The landlord appropriately issued its stage 1 response on 31 January 2025.
31. On 27 March 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the same day, which was in line with its policy. However, the stage 2 response was not issued until 13 June 2025, which was 78 working days later, significantly outside its policy and not in line with the Code.
32. While the stage 1 response acknowledged faults with its complaint handling, its final complaint response failed to acknowledge the delay in providing both the stage 1 and the stage 2 response.

Learning

33. In this case, the resident was left uncertain about timescales, next steps, and responsibilities, particularly when the landlord incorrectly stated that legal action prevented the complaint from progressing. Clear, accurate, and timely communication is essential to manage expectations and maintain trust. The landlord should ensure staff understand the Complaint Handling Code and provide consistent updates, especially where delays occur or additional steps, such as surveys or legal protocols, are involved.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s stage 2 response was dated 28 April 2025, but the transaction record shows it was issued on 13 June 2025. This discrepancy raises concerns about record-keeping and process management and could have caused confusion for the resident.

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication throughout this case was inconsistent and confusing.