London Borough of Lambeth (202430174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430174

London Borough of Lambeth

5 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council since August 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat and the resident lives with her 3 children.
The landlord’s evidence does not indicate that it was aware of any household vulnerabilities at the start of the tenancy. However, it is evident that it became aware of health issues and vulnerabilities for members of the household as the complaint progressed.
On 28 October 2024, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. There had been an issue with damp and mould since she moved into the property. She said the landlord had not completed repairs and there was an urgent need for the household to move.
2. All occupants had health issues brought on or made worse by the damp and mould. Her eldest son has autism and ADHD, another child has allergies, eczema, and a constant cough, and her 10-month-old had a constant cold. She was also constantly falling ill with chest infections and taking anti-depressants.
3. The damp and mould had damaged her personal belongings, clothes, furniture, and her flooring.
4. In April 2024, a damp and mould inspection was carried out, and a mould wash was applied in May 2024. She said it had been unsuccessful as the damp and mould returned along with the accompanying smell. The landlord previously boarded and plastered the living room, but it had not helped to address the high levels of condensation.
5. Since she moved in, her home required many repairs. There was also a crack in the corridor ceiling from the property above, which was hazardous.
On 12 December 2024, the landlord instructed an independent damp and mould surveyor who assessed that:
1. The landlord had failed to repair and maintain the property under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. A lack of adequate heating and ventilation had exacerbated the conditions.
3. Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be considered, as the presence of dampness must be regarded as being prejudicial to health.
4. A schedule of disrepair had been compiled, and the landlord should be given 2 weeks to instruct the works and a further 6 weeks for the works to be undertaken. All the repairs identified could be carried out with the resident in situ.
On 20 January 2025, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised for its delay in responding and:
1. Confirmed that it had spoken to the repairs team and reviewed relevant documents, which included inspection reports and work orders.
2. Acknowledged that an inspection was completed in October 2024 and repair works identified. It said the repair works were scheduled to be completed on 10 February 2025. The works raised included:
  1. Damp and mould treatment.
  2. Plastering in the hallway.
  3. Fixing of bathroom tiles.
  4. A closed-circuit television (CCTV) drainage survey to investigate the underlying cause of mould.
3. Summarised a telephone conversation with the resident on 26 November 2024. It said that the resident had initially declined works because concerns were raised regarding the effectiveness of the proposed repairs. However, the resident had since agreed to allow works to proceed.
4. Clarified that following the inspection of the property, the surveyor did not determine that the property was uninhabitable. Instead, the recommendation was to complete the repair works.
5. Advised that housing transfers are subject to strict eligibility criteria and property availability and the plan of action was to proceed with the repair works. However, if significant issues arose following the completion of the works, the resident’s request to move would be reassessed.
6. Acknowledged the challenges the resident faced and said it partially upheld the complaint.
On 4 February 2025, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She said:
1. It had taken several attempts to contact the repairs team and a significant amount of time to arrange an inspection. The landlord had completed 2 inspections in April and October 2024 and despite a list of recommended works, the only repairs completed were a mould wash and some painting.
2. A humidity test in the property revealed a high reading of 78% and relative humidity indoors should be maintained at 40-70%.
3. Significant damage had occurred to almost all the household items and personal possessions due to mould, damp, high humidity, and condensation.
4. She declined repairs in November 2024 because she was waiting for the complaints team to suggest an alternative solution. The repairs suggested had been completed previously and were unsuccessful.
5. The whole building, where the flat is located, is damp and other residents had experienced the same and moved.
6. In October 2024, a contractor assessed the laminate flooring. It had been affected by the moisture within the property and required replacing.
7. Her energy bills had increased because of the damp and mould. This was because of additional heating and using a dehumidifier.
8. The prolonged damp and mould exposure had caused her children to have respiratory illnesses. They experienced symptoms such as sneezing, infections, wheezing, high temperatures, runny nose, loss of weight, red eyes, skin rash, mucus, and heart palpitations.
On 11 March 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had carried out a full investigation and review of the complaint. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the delays experienced and the inconvenience caused. It acknowledged the frustration and distress given the impact on the living conditions and the household’s health.
2. Confirmed that the necessary repairs had not been fully completed, which was not the standard of service it expected to provide. It said this was due to miscommunication and delays caused by the contractor providing incorrect details.
3. Advised that the outstanding works had been passed on to a specialist damp proofing subcontractor. The following works would be completed:
  1. Mould treatment in the living room and hallway.
  2. Re-plastering of the hallway.
  3. Installation of thermo-boarding in the bedroom and kitchen.
  4. Re-decoration.
4. Confirmed compensation for damage to personal belongings or household goods could be considered via its liability insurance and provided a web link.
5. Stated that the resident’s request to be moved into temporary accommodation required senior-level approval.
6. Acknowledged and apologised that the delays were unacceptable and offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and frustrated that no lasting repair works had been completed. She was concerned for the health of her family and wanted to be moved from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the damp and mould within the property had an effect on the household’s health. While we do not dispute the resident’s position, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim or through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue these concerns.
The resident has also referred to damaged items caused by the damp and mould. While we can acknowledge the upset that may be caused by damaged items and personal belongings, it is not our role to consider if the damage was due to any failing by the landlord or its contractors or if it is liable to pay the resident compensation as this is a matter for the parties’ insurers.
What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s requests for repairs, the landlord’s communication about the matter, and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Damp and mould

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. It must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation.
The landlord’s repairs manual says that routine repairs will be carried out in either 7 or 28 working days, depending on the type of repair, and that planned works will be completed within 90 days. It also says repairs for vulnerable tenants will be prioritised.
The landlord’s damp charter dated 2022, outlines its commitments to residents affected by damp and condensation. It says everyone should live in a warm and dry home, and when dealing with damp and mould related repairs, it will:
1. Offer a rapid response to mould removal and treatment within 7 days.
2. Arrange an inspection within 28 days of receiving a report of damp and mould.
3. Agree and write an action plan (including timescales) with the resident to resolve the damp.
4. Provide ongoing support if persistent damp is present. A surveyor will be allocated and will act as a healthy homes partner.
On 6 March 2024, the resident reported that she had found damp and mould. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection, which was completed on 18 April 2024. This was a reasonable first step to take, as it was required to identify the cause of the damp and mould before it could carry out the relevant repairs. However, it is noted that the landlord’s inspection was attended 43 days after the resident’s report, which was over the landlord’s target of 28 days. It has not provided an explanation for this delay.
On 3 June 2024, the resident chased the outcome of the inspection. She said that a mould wash had been completed in May 2024, but no other repairs had been scheduled. On 25 June 2024, repair works were raised by the landlord with a completion date of 22 July 2024. This was 69 days after the inspection. It is not evident what the reason for the delay was and therefore we can only conclude that albeit for the damp and mould wash, the landlord took no further action after attending the inspection. This was both inappropriate and unreasonable.
On 3 July 2024, the CCTV drain survey was completed. This showed no structural defects within the drainage system and no follow-on works were required. The landlord completed this in a timely manner and within its repair priority timescales from the date the works order was raised.
On 15 July 2024, the resident called the landlord to chase the outstanding repairs. The evidence suggests that repairs were not completed by the landlord’s target date of 22 July 2024 and were delayed further until 16 August 2024. The landlord has provided no explanation for this delay. In the absence of any explanation, this was unreasonable.
On 19 August 2024, the resident contacted her Housing Officer (HO) and requested a second inspection. She said the mould and damp continued to affect her children’s health, and that she had only been offered a further mould wash and paint. There is no evidence that the resident received a response or that the landlord communicated further with her regarding her concerns. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to engage further with the resident, understand her frustrations, and work towards a resolution.
On 9 September 2024, the resident told her HO that the matter was urgent. She said a contractor attended on 4 September 2024 and advised that the only viable option available was to complete a mould wash. Further, the contractor assessed the flooring and said that the laminate was damaged by moisture ingress and required replacing. The resident said that she had paid for the supply and fit of the laminate flooring, and it was distressing that after 1 year, it required replacing.
On 16 September and 9 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said the mould and damp continued, and she was concerned regarding the approaching winter months. It is evident that the landlord was reactive rather than proactive to the repairs. The resident had to repeatedly chase updates and responses. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
The landlord said that the resident declined works on 16 August and 18 November 2024, and on this date, the contractor said that the resident was distressed. The landlord’s damp charter states that an action plan along with repair timescales will be completed. However, there is no evidence that an action plan was considered. In this case, this may have assisted in dealing with the confusion regarding the proposed works and addressed any concerns or miscommunication in a timely manner.
Throughout the investigation, we have found the landlord’s repairs records difficult to assess and determine. For example, the landlord documented that it started works on 21 November 2024 and finished on 23 November 2024 but cancelled the work on 9 January 2025. Good record keeping is an essential part of providing an effective repairs service, and the landlord’s poor record keeping has hampered both its own handling of repairs and our investigation of this complaint.
On 12 December 2024, an independent inspection was completed. It was assessed that a damp and mould hazard was present. Given the landlord’s statutory obligation, it failed to act on the reports or take any appropriate action despite its stated commitments to tackling damp and mould. It is also noted that it remained unresolved during the peak winter months, when damp and mould problems are most prevalent.
The resident reported financial hardship in trying to manage the damp and mould herself, explaining that dehumidifiers and extra heating significantly increased her bills. Under the landlord’s damp charter principles, a “healthy homes partner” should be allocated to residents facing persistent damp issues, providing ongoing advice on minimising condensation and information on support with energy costs. There is no evidence the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns or offered the service that it had set out within its policy. This was unreasonable.
Within the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints, she provided information regarding the damage caused to the household’s personal possessions, furniture, and flooring from damp and mould. The landlord responded within its stage 2 response and advised the resident to claim on its liability insurance. It was reasonable of the landlord to have provided this information and while this should have been provided at the earliest opportunity (within the stage 1 response) it was appropriate that it provided it within its stage 2 response.
The resident would like to be moved from the property. However, both the independent and the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that repair works can be completed while the household remain in the property. Given this, the landlord’s comments regarding a move were reasonable as it is not obligated to authorise such moves without sufficient grounds.
It is evident the landlord was informed that the property conditions had an adverse effect on the resident and her children, who have suffered with respiratory illnesses since the mould and damp occurred. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or addressed these concerns in line with its statement on supporting vulnerable residents. Nor did it risk assess the situation or seek to prioritise repairs in line with its policy. This was inappropriate and was detrimental to the landlord tenant relationship.
It is noted that the landlord admitted some failings with regards to the delay to repairs and it offered £200 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate. Repairs have remained outstanding since April 2024 until the stage 2 response date of 11 March 2025, a delay of approximately 328 days. The resident has also advised that the repairs continue to remain outstanding. This delay is unreasonable and has indicated a fundamental lack of understanding by the landlord of its statutory repair obligations.
Further, despite having a damp charter and tools to manage damp and mould complaints at its disposal, it did not consider applying the principles in this case and it failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the household.
The failings with regards to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs amount to severe maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord that adversely affected the resident. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide an appropriate level of service, which has had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s compensation offer of £200 has failed to fully address the detriment and the offer was not proportionate to the overall failings identified by our investigation.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, the landlord’s repeated failings over a significant period have been considered along with the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of damp and mould has caused the resident. We have taken into consideration that the matter inevitably led to a partial loss of use and enjoyment of the home and the resident had lived in a property with ongoing damp and mould for approximately a year by the time of the stage 2 response. This would likely cause a significant level of distress, which was exacerbated by the landlord’s repeated failure to take appropriate remedial action or carry out its statutory repair obligations.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £2,350. This can be broken down as £1,350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the resident continuing to live with outstanding damp and mould and £1,000 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for serious failings which accumulate over a long period of time, and which have a significant impact on a resident.

Associated Complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days, with stage 1 complaints responded to within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints responded to within 25 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 January 2025, which was 57 working days after the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy and no explanation was provided.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked clarity and substance in addressing the resident’s complaint and was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest stage. Specifically, the landlord:
1. Referred to an October 2024 inspection and listed the outstanding repair works but failed to mention that the works were identified and remained outstanding since an April 2024 inspection.
2. Stated that a drain survey would be completed; however, this had already been completed in July 2024.
3. Failed to acknowledge the independent survey which took place in December 2024, and the extent of the repairs required.
4. Did not adequately explain why delays had occurred, or what it intended to do to resolve them or consider the resident’s frustration or distress regarding this.
Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. In both the stage 1 and 2 complaint response, the landlord did not identify any learning or actions it would take to prevent a similar situation happening again, this was not appropriate.
Having considered all the circumstances, we have found maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the associated complaint. The landlord should pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Provided a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff or the chief executive for the failures identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident a total of £2,500, which comprises of:
  1. £2,350 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
3. Compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
4. The landlord may deduct from this any payments already made in respect of this complaint.
Within 2 weeks, the landlord must arrange to visit the resident with a qualified professional to complete an up-to-date damp and mould inspection of the property.
Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord must complete an action plan. The action plan must be provided to the resident and this service, and include:
1. A list of all works required.
2. A timeline for all outstanding repairs. These are to be completed within a further 28 days.
3. The name and direct contact details for a specific point of contact (SPOC) who will oversee the remaining repairs.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures that the vulnerabilities of the household are accurately updated.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) which contains best practice guidance and recommendations.