London Borough of Lewisham (202437098)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437098

London Borough of Lewisham

30 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of mould.
   2. Lift breakdowns in the block.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant. She lives with her children in a 2 bedroom flat on the 22nd floor of a multi-story block which has 2 lifts. The landlord is a local council. It has no vulnerabilities recorded but the resident told us she and one of her children have health conditions.
3. On 3 May 2023, the resident wrote to her councillor saying there were ongoing issues with damp and mould and the windows of her flat. The landlord told the councillor it was due to replace the lounge window. It inspected the windows in October 2023.
4. The resident complained on 27 May 2024. While her complaint was mostly about her rehousing application, she said the block was not fit for purpose because of mould and the lifts being out of order frequently. She wanted the landlord to apologise for its handling of her rehousing application and review her priority for moving.
5. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 25 June 2024. Relevant to this case, it apologised for the lift breakdowns and said it was working with its contractor to find a solution. It said it was due to inspect mould in her flat on 9 July 2024.
6. The resident escalated her complaint later the same day. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response regarding her rehousing application.
7. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 19 August 2024. It said its lift contractor was progressing lasting repairs and both lifts were working. It said it had arranged to repair her windows. It would inspect for mould again and complete follow on work afterwards.
8. On 21 November 2024, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she was still waiting for the landlord to repair her windows and was concerned the mould could be affecting her daughter’s health. She said the lifts were still unreliable and her daily life was affected when both lifts were out of order. She wanted the landlord to resolve the mould and replace the lifts, pay her compensation, move her and consider its obligations to protect her right to a family life.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Most of the resident’s complaint to the landlord was about its handling of her rehousing application. This falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) because the landlord is a local council. The resident told us she has referred this part of her complaint to the LGSCO and did not ask us to investigate it. We have only referred to the matter of her rehousing application in this report where it is necessary for context.
10. The resident wants the landlord to move her because she feels her flat is no longer suitable for her needs. While we empathise with her situation, we cannot order the landlord to move her. This is because we would not make an order that could result in other residents being disadvantaged. Without assessing the landlord’s transfer list, we do not know if there are others with greater priority than the resident in this case or if ordering a transfer would disadvantage another resident.

Mould

11. On 3 May 2023, the resident told her councillor there were ongoing issues with damp and mould and her windows. When she brought her complaint to us, she clarified that the mould affected her window frames because they were rotten.
12. The evidence shows the resident reported her windows being rotten from at least January 2023. In February 2023, the landlord raised 2 repair orders for rotten windows but both jobs were marked as abandoned. Its records do not explain why the jobs were abandoned.
13. On 16 May 2023, the landlord told the councillor its contractor had inspected the lounge window on 10 March 2023 and found it could not be repaired. It said it would replace the window by the end of July 2023. There is no reference to the contractor’s visit in the landlord’s repair records. Nor is there evidence the landlord raised an order to replace the window.
14. The resident contacted her councillor again about the rot and mould in her windows on 17 May 2023. The landlord sent the resident a copy of its previous response to the councillor.
15. It is not clear from the landlord’s evidence what happened next until 18 October 2023 when it raised a job to inspect rotten windows. The inspection is marked as complete but there are no follow on repair orders on the landlord’s repair log.
16. The evidence suggests the landlord did not repair the windows or treat any mould between January 2023 and 27 May 2024 when the resident complained.
17. In her complaint, the resident did not specifically refer to mould in her flat or the issues with her windows. She said the block was not fit for purpose due to mould.
18. In its stage 1 complaint response of 25 June 2024, the landlord said it was due to inspect on 9 July 2024. It was reasonable the landlord wanted to inspect as doing so would help it decide what it needed to do to resolve the mould. Inspecting was also in line with its Damp, Mould and Leaks policy to determine the cause of reported mould and risks it posed.
19. The inspection date was later changed to 16 July 2024 because the resident was not available on 9 July 2024. We have not seen a copy of an inspection report or other evidence to explain the extent of any mould found at the time of the inspection.
20. On 16 July 2024, the landlord raised an order for a plumbing check. This was reasonable as it would show if a leak was causing mould. The plumbing check was completed on 8 August 2024 but it is not clear from the landlord’s records what the outcome was.
21. In its stage 2 response of 19 August 2024, the landlord said its surveyor had recommended the windows be stripped back to the wood then inspected again to decide what repairs were needed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have told the resident the timescale for the work.
22. There is no corresponding order in the landlord’s repair records for the windows to be stripped back. Nor is there any other evidence the landlord did this repair or a further inspection.
23. On 20 August 2024, the landlord raised an order for mould treatment in the resident’s bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and lounge. The job is marked as abandoned but it is not clear why.
24. On 11 December 2024, the landlord raised an order to repair 2 rotten windows. The job is not marked as completed in its repair records and there is no evidence to suggest any repair was done.
25. On 1 April 2025, the landlord raised another job to treat the mould in the resident’s bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and lounge. This order was also for those rooms to be redecorated and it is marked as completed on 6 May 2025. However, an email we received from the resident on 6 May 2025 suggests mould was only removed from a bedroom window during the contractor’s visit. Her earlier emails to us said she did not want the disruption of having her whole flat redecorated. This may explain why less work appears to have been done on 6 May 2025 than the landlord had ordered.
26. Overall, the landlord’s evidence does not show it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its Repairs or Damp, Mould and Leaks policies. There is no evidence of the outcome of its inspection of 16 July 2024 and it is not clear if it has completed the repairs needed. This amounts to maladministration.
27. We have ordered the landlord to inspect, assess the risks from the mould, complete any repairs needed to the windows and to resolve the mould. We have also ordered it to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by its handling of her reports of mould.
28. The resident told us she and her daughter have health conditions and she was concerned about possible risks to their health from the mould. There is no evidence she had told the landlord about their health conditions when reporting the mould or in her complaint. The landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded against the resident’s tenancy. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to confirm any relevant health conditions and updates its tenancy records.
29. The resident also told us she wanted the landlord to be accountable for its obligations to her under the Human Rights Act 1988. She feels the mould in her home affects her right to a family life because she cannot enjoy her home as she should. There is no evidence she raised this point with the landlord when reporting the mould or in her complaint. As such, the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond. We recommend it contacts her to discuss its obligations and her concerns.

Lift breakdowns

30. In her complaint of 27 May 2024, the resident told the landlord the block was not fit for purpose because the lifts were out of order “every week”. She did not give any specific dates when the lifts had been out of order or refer to any reports she had made about the lifts.
31. The landlord told us it had reviewed the situation with the lifts in the block in 2023 after noting the frequency of reported breakdowns. It asked its contractor to do a detailed inspection which recommended replacing multiple components. The landlord then planned to work on one lift at a time to try to avoid both lifts being out of use during the work.
32. This was a reasonable approach. It shows the landlord had recognised a problem with the lifts, looked for a lasting solution and tried to minimise disruption to residents.
33. The work was done between January and May 2024 but this did not resolve the reliability issues as the landlord intended. Its contractor had continued to adjust the lift settings after May 2024 and installed remote monitoring equipment. This means the contractor is directly notified of any faults and can attend sooner.
34. The repair records of the landlord and its contractor show the contractor attended every reported fault on the day it was reported. In most instances, the lifts were left working after the initial visit. On the occasions when the lifts were not repaired at the initial visit, it was because a part or equipment was needed. There is no evidence of avoidable delays in the landlord repairing the lifts.
35. In its stage 1 response of 25 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged the lifts had been unreliable following the initial upgrading work. It said it was working with its contractor to resolve the issues. In its stage 2 response of 19 August 2024, it said it had been difficult to identify the cause of the ongoing faults but its contractor was doing further work. It said it was keeping the Residents’ Association updated and had agreed to meet with residents after the current repairs. The landlord’s responses were reasonable in the circumstances but it is not clear if it met with residents after completing the further upgrading work.
36. The lift repair records show the number of lift faults reduced after the further upgrading work. They also show the contractor continued to attend faults the same day they were reported.
37. The resident told us her family rely on the lifts because they live on the 22nd floor and have health conditions. She explained that if both lifts are out of order, her family are virtually housebound because the stairs are too difficult for them to manage. While we empathise with her situation, the evidence shows the landlord has taken reasonable steps to improve the reliability of the lifts and repair faults as they arise.
38. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift breakdowns. However, we recommend it checks it has up to date contact details for the resident to make sure she receives its texts when it is dealing with a lift fault. It should continue to monitor the frequency of breakdowns and plan for future replacement in line with its asset management strategy.

Complaint handling

39. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
40. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 27 May 2024. As such it did not meet the requirement of the Code to acknowledge it within 5 working days.
41. It gave its stage 1 response 20 working days later on 25 June 2024. As such, the landlord did not meet the requirement of the Code to give a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
42. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged her request 22 working days later on 25 July 2024. As such it did not meet the requirement of the Code to acknowledge the request within 5 working days.
43. While it gave its stage 2 response 17 working days later on 18 August 2024, its response was already late.
44. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays in either of its complaint responses or explain why its responses were late.
45. Overall, the landlord did not meet the requirements of the Code in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and escalation request or when giving its responses. Nor did it give any explanation for the delays. Its failings amount to maladministration.
46. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by its failings.

Review of policies and practice

47. In this investigation we found failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs and its record keeping. We found similar failings in case 202124577 and made a wider order for it to improve its practices. The landlord complied with our wider order and we will assess the impact of the changes it has made through our future casework.
48. The Ombudsman launched a special investigation into the landlord’s handling of repairs and complaints, and its record keeping on 30 July 2024. We have the powers, under paragraph 49. of the Scheme, to undertake a special investigation beyond an individual complaint to identify common points of failure.
49. We will consider the failings in repair and complaint handling identified in this case as part of our special investigation. We will make recommendations for any improvements the landlord needs to make to its policies and practices through our special investigation.

Determination

50. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of mould.
    2. Complaint.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift breakdowns in the block.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
53. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and the impact they had on her.
54. Pay the resident £300 total compensation made up of:
    1. £200 for its handling of her reports of mould.
    2. £100 for its handling of her complaint.
55. Inspect the resident’s windows and for mould in her flat. The inspection should include an assessment of the risks arising from any mould found, and identify any repairs needed to her windows and to resolve any mould found.
56. The landlord must complete any repairs identified during its inspection within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

57. Contact the resident to:
    1. Check her contact details and get information about her family’s health conditions. The landlord should then update its tenancy records.
    2. Explain its obligations to protect her right to a family life and discuss the concerns she has about this right.
58. Continue to monitor the frequency of lift breakdowns and plan for future replacement in line with its asset management strategy.