London Borough of Lewisham (202422601)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422601

London Borough of Lewisham

22 August 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:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. Concerns about the condition of the property.
3. Queries about a rent account and service charges.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local council. The property is a 3-bedroom, ground floor flat, which the resident shares with her children. The resident has asthma and her son is autistic. The tenancy began on 21 April 2023.
An arms length management organisation (ALMO) was responsible for the council’s housing management functions until 1 October 2023 when the council took back responsibility. For simplicity, this report refers to both the council and the ALMO as ‘the landlord’.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2023. She queried the handling of her rent account and reported a range of repair issues.
The resident reported further issues in July 2023, January 2024 and February 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 June 2024 and said:
1. She was paying charges for “communal lighting”, however, there was no security light outside her property.
2. She had been charged an additional week’s rent for the previous property she rented from the landlord.
3. The landlord did not respond to a complaint she made previously about a contract who visited her property in October 2023.
4. After she moved in, she reported multiple issues about the condition of the property. The landlord had not responded.
5. She had reported leaks to the landlord’s emergency repairs line. Today there was a further leak and there was water leaking into the electrics and running down the walls.
Between 17 and 19 June 2024 the landlord ordered repairs related to the leak.
On 20 June 2024 the resident reported she had no heating or hot water. She reported a further leak on 5 July 2024 and on that date the landlord ordered the removal of the water tank.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024. It did not uphold the complaint as it said the resident had not reported the issues previously. The landlord said:
1. Repairs during the first 4 weeks of a tenancy should be reported to its ‘voids team’. It apologised the issues were not addressed at the time.
2. Due to the extensive list of issues, the resident raised it would inspect the property on 11 July 2024.
3. It did not replace rusty radiators. It had done several repairs to radiators at the resident’s property. The most recent was on 7 February 2024 when it replaced a radiator. A contractor would contact the resident to arrange a visit about the radiator leak.
4. It required the resident to give a week’s notice on her previous property. The termination notice said the resident would return the keys by 9,30am on 1 May 2023, but this was a bank holiday, so it asked her to return the keys on 2 May 2023. The resident did not return the keys until 3 May 2023, so it charged her an additional week’s rent.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 July 2024. She said the stage 1 complaint response was incorrect, and she had reported the issues to the landlord. The resident said the damp and mushrooms had been resolved, however the skirting boards, extractor fans, plug socket and security light were still missing. She said there was condensation in the windows, a faulty window lock in her son’s bedroom and her rent account queries were unanswered. The resident said the water tank leak was unresolved, there were ongoing leaks, and the shower remained unusable.
Between 9 July 2024 and 21 August 2024, the landlord raised multiple work orders to address leaks and issues with the hot water.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 August 2024. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it said there had been a delay resolving a leak. The landlord said
1. It had raised a repair for the “communal lighting serving” the resident’s property.
2. It would install skirting board in the lounge and hallway, when it attended to repair the flooring. It would not install skirting in the other rooms as the resident accepted the property without skirting boards.
3. It apologised for the delay in resolving a leak from the water tank. The tank had been removed, and this should have resolved the issues the with the shower and water pressure.
4. It had raised a work order for the installation of extractor fans and a plug socket in the kitchen. The works were scheduled for 6 September 2024.
5. It acknowledged the resident had reported leaks to its out of hours service but said the other repairs were not reported before the resident made her complaint.
The resident contacted us on 10 September 2024. She said she wanted the outstanding issues resolved and for the landlord to install a security light, extractor fans and skirting boards and to remove the old water tank. The resident said she wanted to be compensated for the issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained to the landlord on 12 June 2024. The Ombudsman will normally consider matters in the 12 months leading up to a stage 1 complaint. In this case, the investigation considers the events from May 2023. This is because this is when the resident first reported issues included in the complaint and referred to in the landlord’s responses. The investigation therefore considers the period from May 2023 until the landlord’s final complaint response on 27 August 2024.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will log and order repairs promptly. When the resident reported a leak, damp and mould to the housing officer on 30 May 2023 her email was forwarded to the landlord’s ‘voids team’. However, it failed to contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
On 14 July 2023 the resident told the housing officer no one had contacted her. She also reported damp in a cupboard containing the water tank. This report was forwarded to the ‘voids team’. Again, it failed to contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
The landlord’s damp mould and leaks policy dated January 2024 says it will treat all reports seriously and will take a solution-focused approach, which puts the resident; not just the property, first. It says the landlord will communicate clearly and keep residents informed of what action it will take, why it is taking it and when it will do this. This policy was not in place at the time of the resident’s initial reports, but we have referenced it as a sensible guide.
The resident reported further issues on 21 and 31 July 2023. She said there were mushrooms growing in the property and she was experiencing breathing difficulties. The landlord asked the contractor that completed the void works to return to the property and rectify the damp and mould.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord should have addressed the issue within 20 working days, in line with its policy. However, it took 4 reports and 10 weeks for the landlord to arrange an appointment. The resident’s reports indicate conditions in the property were worsening and this was clearly distressing for her. Had the landlord followed its repairs policy the distress caused to the resident could have been reduced or avoided.
We expect landlords and their contractors to maintain comprehensive records of all contact with residents, repair requests and services provided. This should include details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records are essential to allow landlords to deliver their repair obligations and to demonstrate they have done so.
The voids contractor carried out a mould treatment at the property and the resident confirmed the mushrooms were removed. The landlord did not provide an inspection report, and its repair records did not detail the nature of the treatment. This is an example of poor record keeping. The resident said there were signs of the mould returning. The failure to keep adequate records meant the landlord did not have a clear picture of the damp and mould at the property, which hindered its ability to affect a lasting resolution to the issues.
On 25 August the landlord told the resident a leak, from a neighbouring property needed investigating. This was 12 weeks after the resident’s initial report and the first record of the landlord visiting her property.
The repair records say it found the leak came from a toilet, rather than a neighbouring property. The landlord failed to record details of the work it completed to resolve the leak. This is a further example of poor record keeping.
After the resident reported radiator leaks in January and February 2024 the landlord fitted a new radiator on 5 February 2024. This was within the 20-working day response time for routine repairs. However, the next day the resident reported the new radiator was leaking, but the landlord failed to raise a work order.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord recorded a leak from the water tank. It is not noted who reported the leak but said the tank would be removed and the hot water system connected to the mains. The landlord failed to raise a work order for this repair.
The resident reported a leak into the hallway on 29 April 2024. The landlord attended as an emergency, which was an appropriate response. The landlord responded to a further report on 15 May 2024 as an emergency. This was also appropriate, however, it did not raise a work order to trace and remedy the leak until 4 June 2024. The landlord should have acted with urgency to remedy recurrent leaks, instead it delayed over 2 weeks and then raised a 20-day, ‘routine’ appointment. This was inappropriate.
The stage 1 complaint response said the resident had not reported the issues previously. This was incorrect. The landlord’s repair records were incomplete, the resident reported various leaks at the property in May 2023.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay repairing the water tank leak. It apologised for the damage and inconvenience this caused. It said it asked its contractor to investigate the ongoing radiator leak. The landlord said the tank had been removed, which should have resolved the shower issues. It acknowledged its stage 1 response was incorrect because the resident had previously reported the leak.
Where the landlord admits failings, we consider whether its offer of redress puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, we consider whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord acknowledged its delay repairing the water tank leak, but it failed to acknowledge the delays repairing the other leaks the resident reported. It also failed to acknowledge the failings in its handling of reports of damp and mould. The landlord raised multiple repairs after the resident complained, the resident said the water tank remains in the property and the mould has started to return. Given the scale of the failings and the impact on the resident it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have compensated the resident, however, it did not do so. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation and take action to put things right. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property

The standard of repair, condition and cleanliness of a property at the beginning of a tenancy is set out in the landlord’s ‘lettable standards’ policy,
After the previous tenant left the property, the landlord carried out ‘void works’. The works are not detailed in the repair records, however, the landlord inspected the property on 21 April 2023 and confirmed it met the ‘lettable standard’.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will log and order repairs promptly and try to offer residents an appointment at the first point of contact. The resident reported issues with the condition of the property to her housing officer on 30 May 2023 and 14 July 2023. The reports were forwarded to the landlord’s ‘voids team’. The landlord did not respond to either report. This was inappropriate.
An internal landlord email said the property met the ‘lettable standard’ and the ‘defects period’ (the time when a contractor is responsible for resolving issues) had passed. The landlord later clarified the “defects period” lasted between 4 and 6 weeks after a resident moved in. This suggests the resident did make her initial report during the defects period, but the landlord failed to act on it.
Regardless of whether the issues were reported within the ‘defects period’ the landlord should have logged the reports and determined if it had a repair responsibility. Where it was responsible, the landlord should have raised a repair in accordance with its policy timelines. If it determined the issue was the resident’s responsibility, it should have communicated this to her. The landlord took none of these actions. This was inappropriate.
It was not until 7 August 2023, 7 weeks after it received the resident’s initial report that the landlord said it would arrange an inspection. It subsequently visited the property on 25 August 2023 and confirmed there was no plug socket in kitchen, the kitchen floor “dipped” and the flooring elsewhere in the property was uneven. There is no evidence the landlord inspected the garden fence, skirting boards, walls, ceilings, windows, radiators, front door or shower, which were issues the resident had also reported. The landlord did not raise work orders to address the issues it identified.
The resident complained on 12 June 2024 and said the landlord had not resolved the issues with the condition of the property. The resident said the lack of skirting boards meant there were access points for vermin. She said she was fearful for her safety because of the lack of a security light. The resident said because of a missing plug socket in the kitchen, she had to use an extension cable and keep a fire door open to accommodate the lead.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2023. It said repairs that arose during the first 4 weeks should have been referred to its voids team and apologised for the issues having not been addressed. The landlord said it would carry out an inspection on 11 July 2024.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection, particularly given the volume of outstanding issues but the inspection did not happen.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it raised work orders for the installation of extractor fans and a plug socket. The landlord said it raised a repair for the communal light outside the resident’s property. It also said it would repair the flooring and install skirting boards in the lounge and hallway. However, it would not install skirting in other rooms as the resident had accepted the property “as it was”. It said if she wanted to dispute this, she should contact her housing officer. The response did not address the resident’s other concerns about the condition of the property. It also did not explain why it had not raised work orders after the inspection the previous year.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It acted unreasonably in directing the resident to the housing officer, if she wished to dispute its decision on the skirting boards. The resident had raised this issue with the housing officer initially and had not achieved a resolution. The landlord had not carried out the promised inspection and therefore it was unreasonable for it to dismiss the resident’s concerns about vermin accessing the property due to the lack of skirting boards.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property caused her distress and inconvenience. It failed to recognise its repair responsibilities, and its communication was poor. It did not follow the timelines set out in its repairs policy. The resident said the extractor fans have not been installed, and the landlord was unable to repair the communal light as there is no light outside her property. As such we have made a finding of maladministration.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right, including an order that it pay the resident £400 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of queries about a rent account and service charges

In May 2023 the resident contacted her housing officer and said she had been charged an additional week’s rent on her previous property. The housing officer said the charge was in accordance with the termination notice, which the resident had signed. She said the resident had been charged because she returned the keys late.
The resident disputed this account and said she had returned the keys on the date the officer had instructed. The housing officer then advised the resident the issue was with the landlord’s termination team, and it would update the resident once it had looked into the matter. This was a reasonable response and suggested the landlord would investigate the issue.
There is no evidence the resident was contacted by the termination team. However, her MP subsequently raised the matter with the landlord. Its response to the MP’s query restated the information provided previously by the housing officer.
The resident complained about the rent charge and charges for “communal lighting” on 12 June 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response sent on 5 July 2024, the landlord restated the information provided to the MP and said the position was unchanged. It did not address the charges for the communal lighting.
After the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 27 August 2024. It acknowledged the resident had requested a full refund of the lighting charges and the installation of a security light. It did not, however, address the request or clarify what the charges were for. This was unreasonable. Instead, the landlord raised a repair for the security light. The resident said subsequently the repair was unsuccessful as there was no light to repair.
There is no evidence the landlord investigated the disputed rent payment, and its termination team did not contact the resident. The landlord failed to address the resident’s query about the “communal lighting charges”. It did not seem to have understood the resident’s concerns about the charges and the security light and the solution it proposed was ineffective. This leads to a finding of maladministration.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right, including an order that it pay the resident £125 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been a failing that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must:
1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days.
2. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints and respond within 20 working days of escalation.
3. Notify residents of any delays and seek to agree a new deadline.
4. Address all points of a complaint in the response.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 12 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 June 2024. This was 2 working days after the timeline required by the Code, which was a minor delay.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2024. The response did not address all the issues about the condition of the property. It also did not address the resident’s complaint about the behaviour of a contractor.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 8 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 30 July 2024. It sent a stage 2 complaint response on 27 August 2024. This was 17 working days after the timeline set out in the Code. The landlord did not notify the resident of a delay or seek to agree a new deadline.
The stage 2 complaint response did not address all the resident’s complaint issues. This denied the resident a full complaint resolution. The landlord also told the resident to contact the housing officer if she disagreed with its decision on the skirting boards. This was incorrect as the appropriate escalation route was to this Service.
We found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £100 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for complaint handling failures.

Review of policies and practice

In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record keeping which are like those identified in case 202124577. We have not made any further orders because we made a wider order for case 202124577, which the landlord complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
We are currently carrying out a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows us to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the concerns about the condition of the property.
3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of queries about a rent account and service charges.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures.
2. Pay the resident £1225, this comprises:

(1) £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould.

(2) £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the condition of the property.

(3) £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of queries about her rent account and service charges.

(4) £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Confirm in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman what is covered by the “communal lighting” element of the service charge.
Carry out an inspection to determine whether the root cause of leaks, damp and mould has been permanently resolved. The landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the report and recommended actions.
Inspect the flooring and skirting boards at the property to identify any access points for vermin. The landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the report and recommended actions.
Inspect the windows at the property. The landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the report and recommended actions.
Confirm the cold-water tank has been removed and the extractor fans and kitchen plug socket have been fitted and are in working order.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide a schedule for any works arising from the inspections.

Recommendations

Consider the installation of a security light outside the resident’s property (if there is not one already).