London Borough of Lewisham (202448818)

Decision
Case ID	202448818
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in ground floor 2-bedroom flat with her adult son. A leak occurred from the pipework connected to her bath. The landlord stopped the leak, after which the resident reported damaged to her flooring and problems with the windows. She later reported damp and mould in her property and complained about delays in the landlord completing repairs.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of damaged windows.
2. Delays to complete repairs due to the presence of asbestos.
3. Reports of damp and mould.
4. The resident’s request for compensation for damage to her carpet.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damaged windows.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to delays to complete repairs due to the presence of asbestos.
3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her carpet.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged windows

The landlord failed to repair the resident’s windows within a reasonable timescale. This resulted in a significant detrimental impact to the resident. It did not identify any failures in its handling or put things right through its complaint process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays in it completing repairs due to the presence of asbestos.

There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing repairs. This was due to its failure to take prompt action regarding the presence of asbestos. The landlord did not offer compensation for its failures or for the detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord made reasonable attempts to treat the mould at the resident’s property, but it failed to update her on the actions she needed to take after the failed appointments.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her carpet

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for compensation was in line with its policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a Director. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 January 2026
2	Works order The landlord must take all steps to provide the resident with windows which meet the requirements of the decent home standard. Works must start no later than the due date. When deciding the scope of the works, if the landlord cannot effect a repair of the windows to the required standard, it must bring forward the date it will replace the windows. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 26 January 2026
3	Work order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work to replace the bath panel is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	16 January 2026
4	Work order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work to treat the mould is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 16 January 2026
5	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,800 made up as follows: £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to repair the resident’s windows. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in its completing repairs due to the presence of asbestos. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
November 2023	The resident reported a leak in her bathroom. The landlord attended and stopped the leak, then returned later that month to repair the pipework. The resident also reported problems with all the windows in her property.
February 2024	The landlord inspected the windows and found it could not repair them. It recorded that the windows needed to be replaced.
8 August 2024	The resident complained about the delay to fix her windows and the time it took to repair the bathroom leak.
20 August 2024	In a stage 1 response, the landlord said the property was included in its planned works programme, which covered window replacements. It said it expected to start consultation on the works before the end of the year. The landlord acknowledged delays to complete the bathroom repairs and poor communication about the windows. It offered £215.06 in compensation. The resident accepted the compensation. She then reported damage to her flooring and said she did not have a bath panel fitted. The landlord arranged a repair.
4 September 2024	The landlord attended to replace the bath panel and flooring. It identified the floor contained asbestos and it would need to inspect before it completed any works.
7 February 2025	The resident complained about several outstanding repairs. She said she had mould in every room and asked the landlord to complete all outstanding works.
27 February 2025	The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response. It said it would repair the windows on 31 March 2025 and that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an asbestos survey. It said the resident had not previously reported mould, but it had referred the issue to the relevant team. It also explained that once the asbestos issue was resolved, it would repair the flooring and replace the bath panel.
2 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had told her several times that it could not repair her windows. She also raised safety concerns because of their condition. She said the issues with the flooring, bath panel, and mould had been outstanding for more than a year. She asked the landlord to resolve the outstanding issues.
28 March 2025	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and thanked her for speaking with it on 27 March 2025. It explained her windows were included in the planned renewal programme for the financial year and that it would carry out interim repairs on 31 March 2025. It said it had been unable to arrange an appointment to treat the mould but would contact her again. It confirmed it had completed an asbestos survey, which showed it needed to replace the damaged floor tiles containing asbestos. It said that once this work was completed, it would finish the outstanding repairs. The landlord also said the resident’s carpet was not covered under its repair policy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the window issues remained unresolved and that the landlord had only offered mould washes, which did not address the root cause. She added that a recent break‑in at a neighbour’s property increased her concerns for her safety because of the poor condition of her windows.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged windows
Finding	Severe maladministration

The landlord first inspected the resident’s windows in February 2024 and decided it could not repair them and would need to replace them. In August 2024, the landlord told the resident it would start consultation on works, including window replacements, by the end of 2024 and aimed to begin the works soon after. It started the consultation before the end of 2024, and this finished on 10 March 2025.
The landlord inspected the windows twice March 2025 and again in April 2025. After the March appointment it reported that all window frames in the property were rotten and there was a large gap under the front‑room window, which caused a draught. It described the windows as being in “shocking” condition. The landlord also recorded the resident’s safety concerns after a recent burglary at a neighbouring property. It understood she felt unsafe because the rotten frames left the windows insecure.
In April 2025, the landlord recorded the windows were in poor condition and beyond repair, noting that any repair would cost more than replacing them. It said the windows needed to be replaced as a priority under its 2025/2026 planned works programme. However, more than eight months later, the landlord had still not started or confirmed a date for the window‑replacement works to start.
The government’s Decent Homes Standard lists windows as key building components. It says that “If in poor condition [key components], could have an immediate impact on the integrity of the building and cause further deterioration in other components” and “have potential safety impacts.” The Decent Homes Standard says that if key components “are old and need replacing, or require immediate major repair, then the dwelling is not in a reasonable state of repair and remedial action is required.”
Based on the findings of the landlord’s own inspections, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s property does not meet the Decent Homes Standard due to the condition of the windows and immediate action is required by the landlord to rectify the situation. It is unreasonable for the landlord to indefinitely postpone taking action to make the situation better on the basis the windows will form part of a planned replacement programme.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provides guidance on hazards within properties. It identifies excess cold as a being hazardous. The HHSRS says that low energy efficiency can be a cause of excess cold within a property.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
In this case, the resident first reported the issue with her windows in November 2023, and the landlord identified in February 2024 that replacement of the windows was the most pragmatic way to resolve the situation. We have found no evidence that the landlord considered any temporary measures to improve the situation for the resident or that it kept her regularly updated on the timescales for the works.
The landlord’s failure to repair or replace the windows for over 2 years was directly responsible for the resident living in unreasonable conditions. This has led to distress and inconvenience and caused a significant impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
The landlord did not identify any failures in its response to this issue in 2025, and it has not put things right through its complaint response. There has been a significant failure in the landlord’s response, which has had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s failures to provide a solution to the issues with the resident’s windows, and its failure to provide any redress or acknowledgement of its failure leads to a determination of severe maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings and to take swift action to improve the situation at the resident’s property.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of delays in it completing repairs due to the presence of asbestos.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported on 20 August 2024 that her bath did not have a bath panel and the bathroom leak had caused damaged her flooring. The landlord attended on 4 September 2024 but could not complete a repair because of the presence of asbestos. No works were conducted until the resident complained about the delay in February 2025. An asbestos survey then took place on 3 March 2025. The survey recommended the removal of broken floor tiles which contained asbestos. The landlord removed the tiles on 3 April and installed new flooring on 16 April 2025.
The landlord’s repair policy states it aims to complete a routine repair within 20 working days. The presence of asbestos prevented it from completing the repair within this timeframe. It took 7 months from the date the landlord knew there was asbestos until it finished the repair to the flooring. The time taken to complete the required work was unreasonable.
The delay caused the resident additional effort and inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord while the repair remained outstanding. The resident told us the landlord had still not replaced her bath panel because of another issue that occurred with the pipework under the bath. We found no information explaining why this prevented the landlord from replacing the bath panel. It was a failure that the landlord had not taken the action to resolve the issues that it said it would do in its complaint responses.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures. Based on the level of its failings and the impact of these upon the resident, we do not consider an apology alone to be sufficient redress in the circumstances. The failure to put things right for the resident through its complaint process leads to a determination of maladministration.
The landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer failed to address the detriment caused to the resident. An order has been included for the landlord to replace the bath panel as previously agreed.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

The resident has raised complaint issues connected with damp and mould which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about mould damaging her belongings with the landlord. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this. The resident would need to complain to the landlord first and allow it the opportunity to investigate this issue first.

What we have considered

The resident complained about the presence of mould in her property on 7 February 2025. The landlord spoke to her on 25 February 2025 and asked her to report the issue to its damp and mould team, as she had not raised it before. The landlord completed an inspection on 10 March 2025, which confirmed the presence of mould in several rooms. It attempted to completed mould washes twice in March and again in April 2025, but the resident either rearranged or missed the appointment.
After the attempted visit in April 2025, the contractor passed the job back to the landlord. The evidence shows the landlord made reasonable attempts to treat the mould by arranging 3 appointments. However, despite these attempts, there is no evidence that the landlord or the contractor contacted the resident to explain what she needed to do to rearrange the works. This lack of follow up communication did not meet the landlord’s policy commitment to communicate clearly and keep residents informed of its action.
While the landlord made reasonable attempts to treat the mould there was a failure in its communication. This leads to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould. An order for the landlord to treat the mould has been included for it to put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her carpet.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained to the landlord on 27 March 2025 her carpet was damaged from the leak in her bathroom. The landlord signposted the resident to her contents insurer to make a claim.
The landlord’s repair policy, states residents are expected to have adequate contents insurance in place. It clarifies it will not usually compensate residents for losses, unless it was negligent.
The landlord was not obliged to compensate for the damage. It responded to the reports of the leak in accordance with its repairs policy. There is no evidence of negligence in matters which led to the leak or its handling of the repairs. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to decline a request for compensation in these circumstances. This leads to a determination of no maladministration in the landlord’s response.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaints and the stage 2 complaint within the timescales of its policy.
The resident first complained about the windows in August 2024. In its response in August 2024, the landlord said it planned to start consultations works to replace the windows by the end of 2024. The landlord started the consultations within the timescale set out. When the resident raised a new complaint 6 months later regarding outstanding repairs, which included the windows, she did not express dissatisfaction with the previous stage 1 response or request her complaint be escalated to stage 2. Therefore, it was reasonable and in line with the Code for the landlord to respond to the complaint in February 2025 as a new stage 1 complaint.
We have found no failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We have seen that the landlord kept records of contact made with the resident and repair logs. We have identified no issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

We have identified failures in the landlord’s communication as detailed in this report. The landlord should look for opportunities to learn from this complaint and improve its service offer to keep resident’s updated with what actions it will take in response to repair issues and to be clear about what actions it requires residents to take.