Southwark Council (202525126)

Background

1. The residents live in a 2 bed house, they are elderly and have vulnerabilities. Since October 2022 they have had a leak in their property from a flat above. This has caused damp and mould throughout their home.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak, damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak, damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. A vulnerable couple have been left living in a property with an ongoing leak, damp and mould, and no lighting in their bedroom for almost 2 years. There were significant delays in the landlord’s investigation of the leak, and at the time of this investigation, 6 months after the final complaint response, the residents still do not know whether the leak has been resolved, and the most recent update from both the landlord and resident confirm that works remain outstanding. The landlord offered compensation for its acknowledged failures, however this did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
5. Although there was a substantial delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, it did provide appropriate redress for the time and trouble the resident experienced.

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.

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.

6. The resident has reported roof leaks since 2022. We understand that these leaks have had a significant impact on the residents. However, we cannot consider issues that were not raised with the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable timeframe. This investigation therefore focuses on events from April 2024 onwards, when the resident reported a roof leak which later led his representative to make a formal complaint in February 2025. This also reflects the landlord’s own complaint investigation which looked at a year prior to the complaint.
7. The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged that the resident had experienced repeated leaks and delays with repairs. The leak was coming into the bedroom but was affecting most rooms in the flat. The resident told the landlord they were using buckets to catch water when it rained. The landlord’s repairs policy said it would attend urgent repairs within 3 working days and leaks that were not causing serious damage or a safety risk within 20 working days.
8. In April 2024, the resident reported water leaking through the bedroom light. The landlord attended the same day and removed the light fitting, which was in line with its repair timescales.
9. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in it investigating the cause of the leak, resolving the leak and completing remedial works. The landlord tried to source the leak but was unable to do so due to its inability to access all potential properties that was causing it. However, it also recognised that some repair jobs were closed in error, and it failed to carry out post‑inspections to confirm whether the issue had been resolved. While we acknowledge that these types of repairs can be complex and may require extended timescales, the landlord is still expected to have effective systems in place to monitor repairs and provide regular updates to manage the resident’s expectations appropriately.
10. In its final complaint response, the landlord stated that it would continue to investigate whether there was any active leaks and it had started to complete remedial repairs. However, at the time of this investigation, the landlord has not shown that it has informed the resident of the cause of the leak or confirmed whether the issue has been fully resolved. It has also failed to complete the necessary remedial works. As a result, a vulnerable resident has been left sleeping in a bedroom with an ongoing leak, damp and mould, and no functioning light for almost two years. This significantly exceeds the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
11. The landlord told the resident it could not share information about repairs to the flats above due to GDPR. While the landlord was correct that it could not disclose personal information about other residents, it should still have clearly explained the cause of the leak, what actions it was taking, the expected timeframe for resolving the issue, and when the resident could expect updates. Its failure to communicate effectively meant the resident had to repeatedly report the same issues and chase for information on multiple occasions.
12. The delay in completing the roof repairs was particularly serious given the resident’s vulnerabilities and their repeated reports of damp and mould. In February 2025, the resident’s representative informed the landlord that the leak, damp and mould were worsening and affecting the resident’s health. A damp and mould inspection took place on 20 March 2025, during which the surveyor recorded high damp readings in the bedroom. They confirmed that a very vulnerable person slept there, stressing that urgent works were required. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or considered temporary measures such as providing dehumidifiers, offering temporary accommodation, or identifying what support the residents needed while waiting for repairs. It was unreasonable for the landlord to leave a highly vulnerable resident to cope with ongoing leaks, damp and mould for such an extended period without any support.
13. As part of their request for resolution, the residents asked to be rehoused or nominated for rehousing. The Ombudsman cannot instruct the landlord to rehouse the residents. In addition, because the landlord is a local authority and maintains its own housing register, the Ombudsman is unable to assess how it manages housing allocations. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of their housing application, this should be raised with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
14. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact its housing team to register and bid for alternative accommodation, there is no evidence that it discussed whether the residents might meet the criteria for a management move. We have therefore ordered the landlord to provide clear advice to the residents about their housing options and outline what support it might be able to offer.
15. As both parties agree that the landlord failed in its responsibilities, this investigation focuses on whether the landlord has offered an appropriate remedy that acknowledges the impact of those failings and puts things right, in line with our dispute‑resolution principles. To assess this, we consider the events that led to the complaint and how the landlord responded. The extent to which a landlord recognises and addresses its shortcomings is therefore as important as the original error or service failure. We will not make a finding where the landlord has fully acknowledged its failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
16. The landlord apologised and offered the resident a total of £820 in compensation for the delays and lack of communication. It explained that this amount reflected a “medium impact” level, stating that higher compensation is only awarded when delays result in harm to health. However, the landlord’s own compensation policy notes that a major impact can also arise from a serious failure due to the severity of the event or from a persistent failure over a prolonged period.
17. The landlord has not demonstrated that it fully considered the household’s vulnerabilities and the impact of the delays, its poor communication or the length of time the resident was left living with an ongoing leak, damp and mould, and no lighting in the bedroom. The resident’s representative reported that these issues affected his parent’s health and his mother’s ability to care for her husband, causing significant distress and inconvenience.
18. In February 2026, 6 months after the landlord issued its final complaint response, the landlord’s records show that works to resolve the leak were ongoing. The representative told us that the landlord carried out works in February 2026 and there have been no leaks since. However, he said the landlord had not informed him or the residents what the cause of the leak was, whether it has been fully resolved, or when the remedial works will be completed.
19. In view of the serious and long‑standing failures we have identified, we have found the landlord to be responsible for maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation offer to £1300. This amount aligns more closely with the “major impact” category in the landlord’s compensation policy. We consider this appropriate given the severity of the issues, while also recognising that the leak affected the residents intermittently throughout the entire period under investigation.
20. An order has also been made requiring the landlord to contact the representative and the residents and update them on the cause of the leak, whether it considers the issues have been resolved and when the remedial works will be completed. We also require the landlord to discuss the resident’s housing options.

21. The landlord operates a two‑stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. A formal response should then be issued within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
22. The resident submitted a complaint on 25 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged it on 4 March 2025, which was within its policy timescales. It then wrote to the resident to delay its stage 1 response until 31 March 2025 but issued the response on 1 April 2025. Although this was slightly outside the agreed timescale, there is no evidence that this short delay caused any detriment to the resident.
23. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 20 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged this the same day, in line with its policy. However, it did not issue its stage 2 response until 10 September 2025, 80 working days later. This was significantly outside the agreed timescale, and there is no evidence the landlord explained the delay or kept the resident updated.
24. The landlord did not apologise for the delay at stage 2, but it did offer £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and reflects the detriment caused by the failings identified in our investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord did not manage the repairs effectively. Good knowledge and information management helps prevent repeated issues. When a landlord fails to link multiple reports of the same problem, it can miss opportunities to arrange inspections or reviews that would address the underlying cause. The landlord should have systems in place to identify patterns, link related repair reports, and escalate concerns when necessary. This would help it act on accurate information, reduce delays, and improve the service provided to residents.
26. The damp and mould surveyor recorded the damp readings in the property as ‘999%’. Although we understand from other comments that this was a high reading, the landlord should ensure that damp readings and other findings are recorded for all staff in an understandable way.

Communication

27. The landlord attended the property several times without finding a lasting solution to the leak. This highlights the need for effective communication with its contractors, consistent post‑inspections, and a clear escalation process for situations where access is not gained or repairs repeatedly fail. Stronger processes would help prevent repair jobs from being closed incorrectly and could lead to a quicker resolution.
28. The landlord did not keep the resident informed about the progress of the repairs. It should have shared the outcomes of its investigations and provided a works schedule with clear timescales. Its communication lacked openness and transparency, particularly regarding the investigations into the leaks and the repairs required to the flats above. The landlord should review its policies, procedures, and staff training on managing leaks in blocks of flats and clarify what information it is able to share.
29. The landlord sent the resident a repair satisfaction survey even though the job had been cancelled and the work had not been completed. This was not customer‑focused and likely caused confusion. The landlord should review its systems to ensure automated surveys are not issued when jobs are closed without the repairs being carried out.