London Borough of Lewisham (202442163)

Decision
Case ID	202442163
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	16 February 2026

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property, a 3-bedroom flat, since April 2021. The flat has its own private balcony and is on the top floor of a purpose built 4 storey block. In communication with his local councillor, the resident said he had experienced issues with damp and mould since buying the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to ongoing issues of damp and mould at the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was maladministration in the landlords:
1. Response to ongoing issues of damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s actions were not timely; it took 10 months to complete any works following its inspection. Its communication with the resident throughout was poor alongside evidenced poor internal communications. The resident spent a considerable amount of time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates. The landlord failed to put things right, even after the resident made a complaint.
The landlord did not follow its complaint policy; its initial response was delayed. It did not follow up on its actions promised in its final response, meaning the resident did not get a proper resolution and spent further time and trouble escalating his complaint to this Service.

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 senior member of staff at director level or above. 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 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1100, made up as follows: • £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its identified failings in its response to the reports of ongoing damp and mould. • £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects both, the internal and external aspects of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 10 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended, following the failings identified in this investigation, that the landlord consider its position on responsibility of any internal remedial works required.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 September 2024	The resident made a complaint and said: Soon after moving in, he realised there was an issue with damp at the rear of the property. He had raised the issue in December 2021, and the landlord inspected in March 2022. Following which he was advised some works had been booked in. The works were not scheduled and a contractor re-inspected in October 2022. This contractor said the proposed work would not remedy the issue. Due to staffing changes no further works were approved or scheduled and the resident had been advised to instruct his own survey. He instructed an independent damp inspection survey; he had shared the result of this survey with the landlord in May 2023, and despite chasing, received no update following this. The landlord conducted its own inspection in February 2024. Despite chasing he had not received the outcome of this inspection. He asked for the report and a plan of action to remedy the damp.
14 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, this included: It apologised for its delayed complaint response and how it had handled the resident’s request for repairs. It said it should have initially advised the resident to carry out his own inspection and advise it if it was responsible for any repairs. Following its inspection in February 2024, it arranged for the rear balcony and roof to be surveyed. No issues with the roof were found at the time, but there may have been an issue with the drainage from the balcony. It apologised for not following up further at the time. It was awaiting a quote from its contractor who attended in October for the balcony repairs. It had asked its contractor to contact the resident directly to arrange an inspection of the external brickwork. It advised that any internal remedy would be for the resident to address and suggested a potential insurance claim. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged it had been slow to respond to email queries, had provided incorrect information, and had been slow to review reports from contractors. It said this had led to avoidable delays in arranging the necessary repairs.
21 November 2024	The resident emailed the landlord and said despite making some headway, everything had gone quiet. The resident continued to communicate with the landlord about the repairs until it acknowledged a stage 2 complaint on 9 December 2024.
9 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, this included: It acknowledged there had been a delay in approving scaffolding. The scaffolding was installed on 22 November 2024, which allowed the contractor to assess the works required and submit a quote, which it had done on 25 November 2024. The works to the balcony were completed on 13 December 2024, and the scaffolding was dismantled shortly thereafter. It found it had initially responded “diligently” to emails requesting information about the works but then failed to respond when clarification was sought after the works began. It apologised for its oversight. It confirmed that its contractor had applied mastic to small cracks in the fascia and window heads alongside completing the balcony repairs. A post inspection had been booked for 14 January 2025. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledged that there were delays in the works following its stage 1 response, and a breakdown in communication. It apologised and said it was actively working to clear the backlog and improve communication with affected residents.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has said the damp and water ingress had caused ongoing damage that led to persistent black mould. He said it was impossible to repair until the underlying issue was fully fixed. He said the landlord had handled the issue “chaotically”. He wanted compensation, a review of its process and the required remedial repairs to be completed. At the time of this investigation, the resident advised the issue remained. He also advised the landlord had inspected again but he was not aware of a schedule of works.

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	Damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

The resident states that he had reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord shortly after he moved in. However, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions and transactions between December 2023 and its final complaint response. Any information provided by the resident and landlord outside of this period, has been noted for context but is outside of the scope of this investigation.
Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation may have impacted the resident’s wellbeing. It is beyond the authority of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

What we have looked at

The lease agreement and the landlord’s leasehold guide confirms that the resident is responsible for the inside of the property, the landlord has an obligation to maintain the building and keep in good repair. This includes resolving issues of damp and mould that is the result of problems with the fabric of the building. It is acknowledged that, damp and mould can also be the result of the resident’s use of a property. Where there are reports of damp and mould the Ombudsman would always expect the landlord to undertake appropriate investigations to determine the root cause. If it is determined that it is being caused by problems with the fabric of the property, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to take thorough and effective steps to resolve the issues as per the recommendations in our spotlight report, damp and mould, it’s not lifestyle, published in October 2021. Where it is a problem caused by the resident’s use of the property that the resident cannot reasonably change the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to work with the resident to provide solutions to resolve the issue.
At the time of this complaint, the landlord had a damp and mould policy in place which stated it would treat reports of damp and mould seriously. The policy also said where the landlord is unable to take immediate action to fully resolve the issue it would continue to communicate with the resident and may offer advice to limit the impact in the interim. The landlord did not adhere to its own policy regarding its communication with the resident in this case. It is evident that the resident spent a considerable amount of time and trouble having to constantly chase the landlord for action to be taken or to receive any updates on works. There were at points, periods of time where the landlord failed to demonstrate that it communicated with the resident, despite him asking for updates.
The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s comments about reporting the damp and mould previously, and no progress being made due to staff changes. Although it was appropriate for it to arrange to inspect the property on receipt of the councillor email, it should have also carried out an investigation as part of its complaints process into what had previously gone wrong for the resident and what action, if any it had taken. Had it done so, it may have been able to identify further failings and possible service improvements.
Understanding damp and mould issues can be complex and evidence that an experienced or qualified person carried out an inspection should be provided to the resident to demonstrate professionalism and reassurance that the matter had been taken seriously. Following its inspection on 6 February 2024, the landlord failed to evidence that an action plan was put together or that the resident was reassured of the next steps. This caused a considerable amount of frustration for the resident who eventually in September 2024 made a formal complaint. Although it upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1, acknowledged, and apologised for some of its failings, it did not acknowledge the impact its failings had on the resident which was not reasonable.
It is also of concern that, from the information this investigation has seen, while the residents independent damp report and the landlord’s own surveyor have both acknowledged the presence of damp and mould within the resident’s home, the landlord concluded following its inspection in February 2024 that the resident should source his own surveyor for a solution to the high humidity levels it had recorded and possible cold bridging. Although the resident is responsible for the interior of the property, the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould appeared to mainly be concerned with whether it is liable for any damages, rather than proactively investigating the issue. This was not appropriate and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the landlord’s response did not appear to be treat the resident fairly.
The landlord noted that the balcony floor and upstand required renewal in February 2024, a further inspection in October 2024 noted that the balcony had “come away from the wall”. The works to the balcony floor were not completed until December 2024, 10 months after it had initially noted works were required. This amount of time is considered unreasonable and far outside its policy timescales for completing repairs. It is noted that the councillor acknowledged a “backlog” of works at the time and the landlord advised of a “backlog” with scaffolding jobs however no evidence has been seen to demonstrate that the landlord communicated this without prompt from the resident as noted above.
Furthermore, the balcony was only 1 area of the property which could have contributed to the damp and mould. The resident’s independent damp report from March 2023 indicated an issue with the rear external walls, the landlord’s inspection in February 2024 also noted a possible brickwork exposure as a contributing factor at the rear. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response on 14 October 2024 that its contractor would inspect the brickwork. The landlords’ internal notes indicate an inspection took place on 11 October 2024 and noted ‘mastic’ was required to the windows. It is not evident that this inspection also looked at the brickwork, or was communicated to the resident who, following the stage 1 response still expected the external brickwork to be inspected. The resident asked the landlord on numerous times following its stage 1 response about the external brickwork with no update being provided. It was not until its stage 2 response that the landlord clarified it had found there to be no issue with the brickwork.
The landlord said it would post inspect the works on 14 January 2025 within its stage 2 complaint response. It is not evident it did as the resident chased this on 3 separate occasions following the stage 2 response. Although it is clear the landlord’s internal complaints team made efforts to find out information relating to this, it is not evident the resident received any further communication about this which is not reasonable.
The landlord’s poor communication around this matter was an indication of poor record keeping. Unfortunately, what was also evident in the internal communications provided for this investigation was a lack of collaboration between departments. A landlord is expected to work cohesively between departments to provide a good level of service to its customers, some of the internal correspondence seen was not cooperative. On 8 October 2024, the landlord apologised to the resident for not providing a complaint response and said its requests for information had been “slow”, so it had escalated the case internally for assistance. Further communications from the landlord followed a similar pattern with the resident asking for updates and the landlords complaints team being unable to provide them. This cannot but have led to the resident being uncertain and lacking full confidence in the capabilities of the landlord.
When damage has been caused to the landlord and resident relationship due to identified failings, providing redress may go some way in helping repair that damage. Landlords should acknowledge and apologise for any failure identified, give an explanation and, where possible, inform the resident of the changes made or actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again. Landlords should recognise that putting things right is the first step to repairing and rebuilding the landlord and resident relationship. There was little evidence of the landlord applying this approach in this case. Given the level of failures identified in this report, and the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, experienced by the resident as a result, a finding of maladministration has been made.
At the time of writing this report, the resident has advised that the damp and mould is still an issue, the landlord has inspected again and promised works but not been forthcoming with a schedule. Overall, the timeframe the resident has had to endure damp and mould in the property with no follow up from the landlord is not appropriate. The landlord failed to evidence that it had considered the risk of detrimental impact on health and well-being in its handling of the repairs. The landlord has been ordered to inspect the property with the aim to find an enduring resolution to the issue. Although the resident is responsible for the interior of the property, the landlord has been recommended to consider its position following this investigation.
This Service has also made an award of £1000 compensation in line with our remedies guidance in cases where the landlord’s repeated failures have had a significant impact on the resident and where its response further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. This is equivalent to £100 per month for the 10 months between when the landlord inspected in February 2024, noted signs of damp within the property, and when some works were completed in December 2024.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process, its policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint initially, on 12 September 2024, it apologised for this and advised it was due to a backlog. In this communication it said a response would be provided by 29 September 2024. The landlord apologised for not responding within its timescale on 1 October 2024 but did not advise of a new timeframe for a response. On 8 October 2024, it apologised again for not providing a response. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 October 2024, 10 working days later than it said it would.
On 21 November 2024, the resident made his feelings clear saying he was “fed up” and was “reluctant to go through more bureaucracy”. Further communications with the landlord between this date and 27 November 2024 followed a similar pattern with the resident asking for updates and the landlord being unable to provide them. It acknowledged his stage 2 complaint on 9 December 2024 and provided its response when it said it would on 9 January 2025.
The landlord offered its apologies for the delays in its complaint handling but offered no other form of redress. This was not appropriate and as detailed above would not have helped the landlord and resident relationship. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 to recognise the impacts its failings had on the resident. These include the loss of enjoyment of their home, distress and inconvenience.
In October 2025 we published a special report into the landlord. We found, throughout our casework, many examples of trust being broken by the landlord because certain actions were not taken and the impact it had on residents. Within the reviewed cases, nearly all showed residents experienced delays receiving a complaint response from the landlord. When things have gone wrong for residents and they resort to raising a complaint to try to resolve their issue, it creates further damage when that complaint is not handled with respect or in a timely manner.
Many of the failings identified by this complaint investigation mirror the issues noted by our wider report. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, the Ombudsman will not make any orders that may duplicate what has been asked of the landlord as part of the special investigation and its complaint handling.

Learning

Landlords should follow their policies and procedures to ensure residents are treated in a consistent and fair way. In this case, the landlord did not follow its repair or complaint handling policies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Landlords should maintain appropriate records so they can satisfy themselves, their residents and external organisations like the Ombudsman that they have responded to issues in a way that is fair and reasonable. In this case, the landlord did not provide clear records to demonstrate this or that they were aware of what the outstanding repair need was at the property. This indicates more effective record keeping is needed.

Communication

The landlord’s records show that while some staff (such as its complaints team) demonstrated good communication, other staff or departments did not. There was therefore a level of internal inconsistency in its communication. It failed to provide updates on the repairs on a number of occasions, leading to the resident having to spend time chasing up or updating it after getting information directly from contractors. This inevitably caused frustration, and a lack of trust that the landlord was handling repairs competently.
It also failed to communicate effectively or appropriately with regard to the complaint. Clear, timely, and proactive communication with residents is essential to maintaining trust and providing an effective service.