London Borough of Lewisham (202527711)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block with a shared stairway and walkway which is covered by a canopy. The property was managed by a managing agent on behalf of the landlord at the time the resident made a complaint. He said the managing agent did not take reasonable steps to maintain the communal staircase and this led to water entering his home. This caused damp and mould which damaged his possessions. The

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The managing agent’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The managing agent’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
   3. The managing agent’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding its record keeping.
   4. The managing agent’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration by the managing agent in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration by the managing agent in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.
5. There was no maladministration by the managing agent in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its record keeping.
6. There was maladministration by the managing agent in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The managing agent responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. The delay in arranging the appointment to inspect and treat the mould was not due to the managing agent and the resident did not ask it to help him move his furniture. The managing agent also arranged for a damp survey to be completed.
8. The managing agent advised the resident that it did not accept his claim for damages and told him to make a claim on his home contents insurance. It also confirmed it would pass on any information to its loss adjuster if his insurance provider felt there were grounds to pursue a claim for losses.
9. The managing agent acknowledged it failed to cancel an appointment and offered an apology for this. It also set out the circumstances when photographs were taken during estate inspections.
10. The managing agent did not follow its complaints procedure at times and there was a delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint 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.

11. Whilst the management agent was responsible for the delivery of the housing management service at the time of the events in this investigation, the landlord retained overall responsibility for its obligations under the tenancy agreement. The landlord is also obliged to ensure that anyone it delegates its responsibilities to, carries out those responsibilities to an acceptable standard and it acts promptly if it identifies any areas of concern. 
12. The landlord has subsequently taken the service back in house. Unless otherwise indicated, references to “management agent” and the “landlord” should, therefore, be treated as being relevant to both parties. 
13. In considering the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of damp and mould, it is noted that he has referred to a possible impact upon his health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.
14. The housing records confirm the resident told the managing agent on 15 November 2024 that there was damp and mould on his bedroom wall and in the bathroom. He said water could be accessing his property through cracks in the communal staircase. He asked the landlord to stop cleaning the communal staircase until the matter had been investigated. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms it is responsible for the structure of the building, including communal walkways and stairs.
15. The managing agent raised a job on 19 November 2024 to inspect the cracks in the communal staircase on 20 November 2024. It told the resident that it would complete any identified work within 21 calendar days. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
16. The cracks were temporarily sealed on 20 November 2024. A routine estate inspection was carried out on the same day, during which no concerns were raised about the staircase. The landlord was entitled to rely on suitably qualified staff to inspect the estate and determine if any repairs were required. Further work was carried out on the staircase on 22 November 2024. This included chasing out and filling the cracks. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
17. The managing agent contacted the resident on 27 November 2024 to arrange an appointment to inspect and treat the damp and mould in his bedroom. This was consistent with its damp and mould management process. This says the immediate priority is to remove the visible signs of damp and or mould to reduce the risk to residents breathing in mould spores.
18. The managing agent offered the resident an appointment for 3 December 2024 and asked him a series of questions about the scale and location of the damp and mould. It also said the resident would need to ensure the furniture was moved away from the wall prior to the appointment. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances given it was not aware the resident would have difficulty doing this.
19. The resident responded on the same day and noted he would need help from his family moving the furniture given he had sustained an injury. There is no evidence he responded to the questions posed by the managing agent. This meant it did not know the scale of the problem or impact it was having on the resident or his household. There is also no evidence the resident asked the managing agent for help moving the furniture.
20. The resident told the landlord on 1 December 2024 that he had been unable to get any assistance to move the furniture and the appointment would need to be rearranged. It is acknowledged the resident’s circumstances contributed to the delay in treating the damp and mould at this point and the landlord cannot be held responsible for this. He asked the landlord if there were any appointments during the week commencing 9 December 2024. Again, there is no evidence the resident asked the managing agent for help.
21. The resident contacted the managing agent on 10 December 2024 and noted he had received a voicemail confirming an appointment had been booked for 16 December 2024. He said he had not asked for the appointment and he was still trying to arrange for the furniture to be moved. He asked the landlord to cancel the appointment unless it could deal with the damp in the bathroom on this date and address the issue in the bedroom in the new year. The managing agent agreed to the resident’s request. This demonstrated it was resolution focused.
22. The managing agent noted on 11 December 2024 that a job had not been raised to inspect the bathroom and asked the resident for more information. He responded on the same day and noted there was mould on the bathroom ceiling, walls and silicone. The managing agent confirmed an appointment had been arranged for 6 January 2025 to inspect and treat the mould in the bedroom. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
23. A mould wash was completed in the resident’s bathroom on 23 December 2024. The managing agent told the resident on 27 December 2024 that it would complete the work in the bathroom and apply a mould wash in the bedroom on 6 January 2025. The work was completed on this date in accordance with the managing agent’s damp and mould management process.
24. The managing agent told the resident on 21 January 2025 that it responded promptly to his reports of damp and mould. It said it would arrange for a specialist damp survey to be completed on 27 February 2025. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for him. It also noted it carried out regular estate walkabouts, during which no cracks in the asphalt were identified. This provided clarity. It said the cracking may have been due to environmental factors, such as a change in weather conditions.
25. The resident made a complaint on 11 February 2025. He said the managing agent had failed to take reasonable care to prevent avoidable damage to his home. He said the cracks in the asphalt indicated the issue had been ongoing for some time and should have been identified during the routine block inspections. He also said the delay in carrying out the work was because the managing agent said he was responsible for moving the furniture.
26. A damp survey was completed by an independent organisation on 27 February 2025. This demonstrated transparency on the part of the managing agent and would have helped reassure the resident that the findings of the inspection were impartial.
27. The surveyor noted there were no obvious external defects that would give rise to the occurrence of penetrating damp. They also noted there were no elevated moisture readings which could lead to damp, although it was noted humidity levels were slightly high. The surveyor recommended the resident opened the windows to allow crossflow ventilation. Damp was identified above the kitchen cupboard and the surveyor said it appeared to relate to an internal crack. It was recommended the affected plaster was hacked off, the crack was sealed and the managing agent investigated whether the balcony above the resident’s home was leaking.
28. The managing agent told the resident on 5 March 2025 that it was reviewing the surveyor’s damp survey report and would provide him with an update by 14 March 2025. This was in accordance with this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould (published October 2021). This says landlords should share the outcomes of surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps.
29. The managing agent told the resident on 13 March 2025 that no evidence of damp was found on the left-hand side of his property and the work carried out by its contractor and him had resolved the issue. It also noted the surveyor had identified slightly high humidity levels and a crack in the kitchen wall which could allow damp to enter his home. The managing agent noted this did not relate to the resident’s complaint and confirmed it had arranged to check his neighbour’s property. It also said it would arrange for any identified repairs to be completed and would contact the resident regarding the work that was required in his kitchen. This was appropriate.
30. The managing agent said it could not substantiate the resident’s claims of negligence given it had offered him an appointment for 3 December 2024 and this had to be changed given he was unable to move his furniture. This provided clarity. It asked the resident to provide evidence to support his claim that the cracks were long-standing so that it could provide its comments. The managing agent’s request was reasonable in the circumstances.
31. The resident arranged for a home survey to be carried out on 1 April 2025.
32. The managing agent provided the resident with a copy of the damp survey report on 2 April 2025. This was appropriate and demonstrated transparency. It noted on 3 April 2025 that no defects were identified with the walkway above the resident’s home during the recent inspection that was carried out.
33. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2025.
34. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
35. In this case, the managing agent told the resident that major works were carried out to the building in January 2024 and it undertook regular estate inspections. It also noted it had not identified or received any reports that the asphalt was damaged and as a result, it had not undertaken any repairs. This provided clarity.
36. The managing agent noted it responded promptly to the resident’s reports of water ingress and damp. This included sealing the cracks and offering him appointments to treat the mould. It said the delay in completing the mould treatment in the bedroom was due to the resident being unable to move the furniture.
37. The managing agent noted it arranged for a damp survey to be completed as a precautionary measure and was not requested by the resident. It confirmed the report findings had not been altered or manipulated as suggested by him. It noted his request for a copy of the full report had been passed to its data protection team. It said this was because it needed to redact any information in the report that was covered under GDPR. This provided clarity.
38. The managing agent noted that cracks had been identified in the kitchen during the damp inspection, but these had not been reported by the resident and were not related to his reports of water ingress. It said it had arranged to inspect his neighbour’s property. This was appropriate. It also said the surveyor detected humidity in the resident’s home and noted this could be managed by ventilating and heating the property.
39. The managing agent told the resident on 7 April 2025 that it had arranged an appointment for 22 April 2025 to complete the work in the kitchen that had been identified in the damp survey report. It also said it had arranged for a CCTV survey to check the floor gully outside a neighbouring property on 8 April 2025. This was to establish if there were any defects which could be contributing to damp in the resident’s property. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it was resolution focused.
40. The managing agent rearranged the appointment scheduled for 22 April 2025 as its contractor experienced transportation problems. The resident was provided with an update and the appointment was rescheduled to 28 April 2025. The work was completed on this date.
41. The managing agent noted on 29 April 2025 in its final complaint response that it could find no evidence that the asphalt walkway and upstands were cracked prior to the resident raising concerns. Neither had it been able to substantiate his claims that the cracks had been there for a long period of time as they were not identified during routine inspections or reported by any resident. This provided clarity. It also said staff were instructed not to soak the landing when cleaning and it responded promptly to his request to stop cleaning the staircase until his concerns had been addressed.
42. The managing agent said it responded promptly to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This included repairing the cracks in the asphalt and treating the mould in his bedroom and bathroom. It also inspected the balcony and walkway above the resident’s property and carried out a CCTV survey of the gully. No defects were identified during these inspections that could contribute to damp. In addition, it said it did not offer him a dehumidifier because he had already bought one but was happy to reimburse him the cost. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
43. The managing agent noted that the survey arranged by the resident was a homebuyers’ survey and not a structural survey. It said it did not accept the report findings that there were serious structural defects with the building which would allow water ingress and damp. It also noted that no category 1 or 2 repairs were identified in the report that were considered to be serious and could not be maintained in the normal way. This provided clarity.
44. The managing agent acknowledged it should have made reasonable adjustments following the resident’s reports that he could not move the furniture due to a back injury. It said that whilst the resident did not indicate he needed support from it, it was sorry for this oversight and would consider its approach if it received such request in the future. This demonstrated the managing agent took learning from the resident’s complaint.
45. The managing agent confirmed it did not carry out specialist damp surveys upon receipt of first reports of damp and mould and noted that initial assessments were carried out by operatives. It said it arranged for a damp survey to be completed in February 2025 to establish the cause of the damp. This provided clarity and was consistent with its damp and mould management process.
46. The managing agent confirmed it had shared the damp survey report with the resident and noted that the initial assumption that the water ingress was due to external cracks had not been confirmed. It said it was likely the property was experiencing cold bridging, which was indicative of the building’s design and age and could lead to condensation and mould. It noted that it was happy to monitor the situation.
47. The managing agent noted that it had not blamed the resident for the damp or suggested it was due to lifestyle factors. It said it had been identified in the damp survey report that there was humidity in the resident’s home and the surveyor had suggested he opened the windows to reduce this. It said it was sorry for any upset that had been caused. The managing agent’s comments were reasonable in the circumstances.
48. Having considered all of the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

49. It is not this Service’s role to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. Neither do we make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether it acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances.
50. In this case, the resident told the managing agent on 13 January 2025 that his possessions were damaged by damp and mould. He asked the managing agent to contribute towards the cost of replacing the damaged items. The managing agent responded on 21 January 2025 and said it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure he had home contents insurance to cover his possessions against damage. This was consistent with information included in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
51. The managing agent confirmed the resident was unable to make a claim under its public liability insurance given there was an excess of £5000. This provided clarity. It also said it would consider if it had been negligent when carrying out the recent work to the communal staircase and assess whether he was eligible for compensation. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
52. The resident told the managing agent on 25 February 2025 that its suggestion that he should make a claim on his home contents insurance was unreasonable. He said this was because the damage that had been caused was due to building repairs and maintenance failures. He also noted an excess on its public liability insurance was not a valid reason to reject his claim for compensation.
53. The managing agent told the resident on 13 March 2025 that it did not accept his claim that the damage was due to failings on its part. It also noted it would pass on any information to its loss adjuster if his insurance provider felt there were grounds to pursue a claim for losses. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
54. The managing agent noted on 4 April 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that it did not insure residents’ personal possessions and it was recommended in the tenancy agreement that they purchase home contents insurance. It also noted that following further investigation, it did not accept the resident’s claims of negligence. This provided clarity.
55. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 29 April 2025 in its final complaint response. This included noting it did not accept the resident’s claim that it had been negligent and his insurance provider would determine if there was any third-party liability. It also noted it had sent his claim to its loss adjuster for consideration and was awaiting a response. The managing agent’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
56. Having considered all of the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

57. The resident asked the managing agent on 25 February 2025 for copies of the inspection reports and the repair records in relation to the communal staircase. He also said he wanted copies of any photographs that were taken during the estate inspections. The managing agent responded on 7 March 2025 and confirmed the information was shared with him on 26 February 2025.
58. The managing agent noted on 4 April 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that the appointment scheduled for 3 December 2024 was not cancelled correctly on its system. It said this was due to human error and led to an operative visiting the resident’s home. It could find no evidence of a no access card being left. The managing agent offered an apology and said the matter had been escalated and would be discussed with the staff concerned and training provided if required. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
59. The managing agent confirmed it only took photographs of defects during estate inspections. Given no repairs were identified in the resident’s block during the inspection in September 2024, it said no pictures were taken. It also said the photograph that was shared with the resident was of a different building. The managing agent confirmed photographs were uploaded onto an estate inspection report, which included the date of the inspection. This provided clarity.
60. The managing agent reconfirmed its position on 29 April 2024 in its final complaint response. This included noting the issues relating to the appointment on 3 December 2024 had been appropriately addressed by the operative’s line manager. It also said it did not take photographs where no repairs were required as this would be a time-consuming exercise with limited benefits. This provided clarity. The managing agent apologised for any miscommunication and for sending the resident the wrong photograph. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
61. Having considered all of the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

62. The resident made a complaint on 11 February 2025. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged by the managing agent. This was not consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code) and meant the resident was not clear when he would receive a response.
63. The managing agent did not issue its stage 1 complaint response within the 10-day target set out in its complaints policy. Whilst it told the resident it needed more time to investigate his complaint, it did not do this until 28 March 2025. This was a failure. It said it would provide a response by 10 April 2025.
64. The managing agent issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2025. This was some 8 weeks after the resident raised his complaint. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. There is no evidence the managing agent acknowledged the complaint escalation request. This was a further failure.
65. The managing agent issued its final complaint response on 29 April 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in complaints policy. It said the delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint was because his communication was frequent, lengthy and complex. The landlord’s comments were not reasonable in the circumstances. The complaint was investigated by a different member of staff to the one that considered the complaint at stage 1.
66. Having considered all of the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made.

Learning

General learning

67. The landlord should include its learning from this case into the wider learning from this Service’s recent paragraph 49 investigation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

68. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

69. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s communication in this case.