London Borough of Lewisham (202424214)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424214

London Borough of Lewisham

11 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives with her 3 children, all under the age of 7 at the time of the complaint. The resident has asthma, and in correspondence with the landlord throughout the complaint, she had discussed her mental health.
In November 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in her bathroom, causing the floor to warp. The landlord completed the necessary repairs in March 2022.
The resident formally complained on 19 January 2024. She said that damp and mould had persisted for years and spread throughout the property because, in her opinion, the landlord failed to address the root cause. She said the landlord’s surveyors had inspected the property in May 2022 and October 2023, each time informing her that remedial works would start within 6 weeks, but the works did not take place. She said she has asthma and is concerned that her daughter has also started showing symptoms.
In its 23 March 2024 stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs and offered £50 in compensation. It said that it would contact the resident the following week to schedule the work.
In further correspondence, including her June 2024 escalation request, the resident said:
1. She did not have space to keep her belongings safe.
2. She would like to know the living arrangements during the work to keep her family safe.
3. She would like the landlord to provide a detailed scope of work to ensure the repair would be effective and long-lasting.
In its 23 August 2024 final response letter, the landlord said its managers would visit the resident on 6 September 2024 to address her concerns. In the meeting, the landlord agreed to carry out the works in October 2024 while the resident was away on holiday for two weeks. It said it would store her belongings before the work began.
The resident contacted the Service on 23 September 2024. She explained in April 2025 that she “had been going back and forth for years” and was concerned that the work proposed by the landlord was not going to resolve the issue. She said that to back this up, she had paid£400 for an independent surveyor who confirmed the leak was from the main cold-water pipe. She told us in July 2025 that her concern had not been addressed, and consequently, the work did not progress. To resolve the complaint, she would like the landlord to complete the work addressing the root cause and offer compensation that reflects the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health has been noted. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and well-being. These matters are better addressed by the courts, which are better equipped to determine the reason a health condition has deteriorated. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she may want to seek independent legal advice first. This investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy, legal obligations, and treated the resident fairly in all the circumstances.
Part of the resident’s complaint to us concerns events that occurred in 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise formal complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, within 12 months of the issue arising. As issues become historic, evidence becomes increasingly difficult to obtain, which affects the Service’s ability to investigate the complaint fairly. As such, this assessment will focus on the resident’s formal complaint, dated 19 January 2024, and events occurring up to 12 months prior to the complaint. References to earlier events are for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The tenancy conditions reflect the landlord’s repairing obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which require the landlord to repair and keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will adopt a resolution-focused approach to repairs, placing the resident at the centre of its efforts.
Landlords must assess the condition of their properties using a risk assessment approach known as the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are potential category-one hazards that fall within the scope of the HHSRS. Landlords must assess the risk and take action to minimise it.
In this case, the landlord’s records do not show when it inspected the resident’s home for damp and mould, nor has it provided details of the outcome of each inspection. The landlord has not disputed the resident’s claim that her property was inspected in October 2023. In its 20 March 2024 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in arranging the required work in the resident’s home. It apologised, offered compensation, and committed to arranging a suitable day with the resident in the coming days. However, the resident did not hear back, and she chased the landlord for updates in March and April 2024. The landlord said that it had chased colleagues but was waiting to hear back.
Operatives inspected the property around 10 April 2024. However, no further progress was made, and there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about the delay or about its plans to do the repairs. This contradicted the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which says it will keep residents informed about the actions it will take, the reasons behind them, and the timeline for completion. There is also no evidence that at this time, the landlord offered an interim solution, such as washing the mould, to help mitigate the impact on the resident. This was another missed opportunity to deliver its services in accordance with its policy.
The resident chased the landlord for progress in May, June, July, and August 2024. The landlord mostly failed to respond, and when it did respond, it failed to provide an update. In summary, the resident’s concerns were:
1. Operatives had told her in April 2024 that they needed to work on the entire property at the same time. She said she was a single mother with 3 young children, little support, and no space to move her belongings to protect them from the work.
2. She said that the bathroom work in 2022 triggered her asthma. Similar work was planned throughout the property now, and she was concerned that this could harm her and her children. She said that despite raising her health concerns with the landlord several times, the landlord failed to respond. This made her feel the landlord did not care about her family’s health. She asked the landlord to clarify the living arrangements during the work and to explain how she could keep her children safe.
3. She said she needed assurances that the work would permanently address the root cause of the damp and mould. She requested the landlord’s schedule of works and enough notice to prepare for it.
There was a lack of progress over 11 months from October 2023, when operatives inspected the resident’s home, until the landlord’s final response letter in August 2024. During this period, the resident sent at least 12 emails to the landlord, repeating her concerns and asking for progress. In 6 of these emails, she specifically requested that the landlord explain the measures it would take to ensure it traced and addressed the root cause of the damp and mould, which she said could be external. She said operatives had told her they would replaster the property, which, in her opinion, was a temporary repair. The landlord was not resolution-focused. It was also unlikely that the resident felt as though she was at the centre of the landlord’s efforts to do the repairs.
The landlord wrote to the technical surveyor on 16 September 2024, stating that the resident was concerned about potential external issues and sought confirmation as to whether the external areas could also be inspected. We have not seen the surveyor’s response. However, later that day, the landlord wrote to the resident, stating that the technical surveyor had inspected the building internally and found no issues that might be causing the damp, but it said it would check this with the contractor once work commenced. The landlord’s response lacked decisiveness and assurances that the resident was seeking.
Following the landlord’s 23 August 2024 final response letter, its handling of the case improved significantly. In response to the resident’s concerns, it agreed with the resident that:
1. It would carry out the work in October 2024, during a period when the resident had pre-booked a 2-week holiday. This was a reasonable solution to address the resident’s concern of keeping her family safe.
2. It would remove and store the resident’s belongings. It delivered storage boxes to the resident on 16 September 2024, maximising the period in which she could pack her belongings. It offered the resident help with packing her belongings, if she was comfortable with it. It also offered to remove the packed boxes in stages, giving the resident more space to pack the rest of her belongings. The landlord was resolution-focused here and demonstrated that it had adapted its service to suit the resident’s needs. This was appropriate.
3. The landlord provided the resident with a schedule of works on 30 September 2024, which included a description of its planned internal works, such as replastering the majority of the property, as well as external works, including the installation of air bricks to aid ventilation. It also included an instruction to test all plumbing installations in the property, and to report back with pictures. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its qualified operatives in determining the required work.
4. The resident remained concerned that the scope of works would address the root cause of the damp and mould. She decided to instruct an independent surveyor to inspect the property for which she paid £400. The report concluded that the likely source was a leak in the main cold water pipe under the property’s flooring. The resident explained to the Service in March 2025 and July 2025 that this strengthened her lack of trust in the landlord’s repair service, and for this reason, she decided not to proceed with the work, pending our investigation. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the landlord cannot be held accountable for the delay from this point onward, as it cannot proceed with repairs without access to the property. The landlord contacted the resident in November 2024 and asked her to allow access to wash the mould in the property as a temporary measure to mitigate the impact on the resident and her family, demonstrating its improved service and alignment with its policy.
Notwithstanding the landlord’s improvement, there were also failures that it did not recognise in its final response letter. Not least, the lack of any progress since its stage 1 complaint response, and the cumulative impact this had on its relationship with the resident. The lack of clear communication over 11 months was a contributing factor to the deteriorating relationship, which further influenced the resident’s decision to instruct an independent surveyor.
During this investigation, the resident informed us in July 2025 that she could stay with relatives to enable the necessary work to be completed. Subject to her agreement and a mutually agreed-upon date with the landlord, an order has been made below for the landlord to carry out the repairs. In line with its damp and mould policy, the landlord has been ordered to produce an action plan outlining the actions to be taken, the reasons behind them, and the timeline for completion. It will also clarify whether it considered the recommendations of the resident’s surveyor and the measures it will implement to ensure the repair is effective and long-lasting.
As we have identified failures that adversely affected the resident, the landlord must put things right. In assessing the level of compensation to put things right, we considered that the landlord identified some, but not all, of its failures. We have relied on our remedies guidance and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 in compensation, including the £50 it had already offered in its internal complaint process.
We also considered that the resident continuously sought to understand whether the root cause was being addressed, and she asked the landlord to explain how its proposed works would end the issue. This resulted in the resident feeling uncertain that the correct approach was being taken and that she could trust that the issue was being taken seriously. She subsequently resorted to finding the answers for herself by commissioning a surveyor. This cost could have been avoided. The landlord had a role in shaping the resident’s feelings and her lack of confidence in its services. Therefore, it would be fair for the landlord to cover 50% of the surveyor’s cost. There is no evidence that the resident advised the landlord of her decision to hire the surveyor and the expected cost. Therefore, we do not believe it would be fair to apportion the entire cost to the landlord.
In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record keeping, which are similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with the Service following the wider order, and we will monitor the progress of this.
Additionally, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £700, comprising:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused, including the £50 it has already offered in its internal complaint process. This amount is proportionate in recognising the resident’s experience from October 2023 when the landlord inspected the property, until October 2024, when she confirmed she would not allow the works to progress.
2. £200, equivalent to half of the cost she had paid the independent surveyor.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident with its action plan for completing the repairs. The plan must include at a minimum:
1. Confirmation of the arrangements to keep the resident’s belongings safe.
2. Agree on a plan for keeping the resident and her family safe during the work.
3. It must outline the steps it would take to trace for external leaks or other secondary sources, and ensure these are addressed.
4. Before the resident moves back into the property, the landlord’s technical surveyor must visit the property to ensure all works are complete.
5. Within 3 months of the resident’s return to the property, the technical surveyor must visit the property to confirm the repair was effective and solved the damp and mould issue in the property.
6. A copy of its action plan must be sent to the resident and the Service within 4 weeks from the date of this report, and confirmation of the progress made at every stage of the plan.