London Borough of Lewisham (202419068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419068

Lewisham Council

29 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Reports of toilet repair issues.
   3. Request to be rehoused.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a 1-bedroom flat.
3. On 22 September 2023 the resident reported stains on the hallway cupboard after a damp and mould treatment. She sent a video of a leak on 1 October 2023, which she said had recurred around 20 times since 2019. She was concerned the ceiling would cave, and that the flat was humid and had damp and mould. On 1 March 2024 the resident reported that the toilet was not flushing properly.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 3 June 2024. She reported several outstanding repairs including a broken toilet, damp and mould, water dripping from the lightbulb, and the bathroom needed to be repainted due to a repeated leak. She said a surveyor informed the landlord several weeks prior of the required works, but it had not contacted her or attempted to complete the repairs. She said the repairs caused a health and safety risk and impacted her mental health.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 June 2024. It asked the resident to send pictures of the damp and mould so it could assess the issue. It said it was unable to gain access on 9 April 2024 and 24 May 2024 to repair the toilet, 22 April 2024 to repair the water damage, and 17 June 2024 to make the hallway light safe after a leak. It said it was important for the resident to allow access and advised her to contact the repairs team.
6. The resident escalated the complaint the same day as she disputed the landlord’s findings. She said she had already sent photos of the damp and mould, and the landlord had not responded. She had requested to reschedule the appointments, but the landlord had not responded, so disputed she was responsible for the access issues.
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 13 August 2024.
   1. It apologised for the misinformation about missed appointments provided at stage 1. It acknowledged its failing to action the resident’s request to reschedule the appointments and that one appointment was booked without prior notice to the resident.
   2. It attended on 8 July 2024 to make the light safe.
   3. It had scheduled an appointment to repair the toilet for 9 April 2024, but the resident had not responded. It booked an appointment for 13 August 2024 and would schedule any follow-on work.
   4. It booked an appointment for 2 September 2024 to repair the water damage.
   5. The damp and mould officer was on annual leave so it was unable to provide any further comments about the email sent to the department. It was awaiting a report from its contractor. It scheduled an inspection for 27 August 2024 to prevent any further delay and would raise any necessary follow-on work.
   6. It contacted the flat above to ensure they turned all taps off. It also liaised with the leaks access team to trace and resolve the leak.
   7. The housing officer would contact the resident about her request to be rehoused.
   8. It offered £20 compensation for each missed appointment, totalling £80, and £20 compensation to acknowledge the delay, distress, and inconvenience.
8. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as the damp and mould was ongoing and she was unable to decorate. She said there had been no leaks within the last 6 months and the landlord repaired the toilet, but there were significant delays in completing the repairs. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issues in full, issue an apology, and pay compensation for the decoration costs, damaged rug, suitcase, and clothes, and for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. It is understood that the resident raised a previous complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak in 2021. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. As such, the earlier complaint is not within our remit to investigate. Instead, the investigation will focus on the resident’s more recent complaint made on 3 June 2024, and events up to 12 months prior to the complaint.
10. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s report that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
11. The resident wants to be moved from the property. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s reasons for wanting to move, however, we are unable to order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties or details of any other prospective tenants or applicants that may have higher priority for rehousing. Nonetheless, the Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
12. The resident has also raised concerns about noise nuisance and boiler repair issues. There is no evidence that the resident has raised this as a formal complaint to the landlord. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

Reports of leaks, damp, and mould

13. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property. The landlord’s damp mould and leaks policy dated January 2024 outlines that it will treat all reports of leaks, damp, and mould seriously and will take a solution, focused, holistic approach whenever it can, which puts the resident, not just the property, at the centre of the resolution. It adds it will communicate clearly and keep residents informed of what action it will take, why it is taking it and when it will do this. Where it is unable to take immediate action, it may offer an interim solution and support to limit the impact. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial damp and mould reports but is referenced to as a sensible guide.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. It considers containable leaks as routine repairs and uncontainable leaks as emergency repairs. Urgent repairs include work to prevent damage to the property and where there is a possible health and safety risk.
15. The leaks were intermittent, and the resident said they were often caused by her upstairs neighbour leaving the taps on.
    1. The resident reported a leak from the flat above on 12 June 2023, which the landlord marked as completed on 5 July 2023. This was within 17 working days. However, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the condition of the leak, including whether it was containable, to determine what priority to handle the repair. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to confirm whether it responded within the appropriate repair timeframe.
    2. The resident reported a further leak on 1 October 2023 and raised concerns the ceiling would cave. The landlord raised a work order the following day and attended on 30 October 2023. Given the resident’s concerns about the safety of the structure of the property, the landlord did not respond with suitable urgency. It should have handled the matter as an urgent repair and attended within 3 working days.
    3. The resident reported another leak on 13 August 2024. The landlord internally noted that it had arranged an appointment to resolve the leak in the flat above on 15 August 2024. This was a reasonable timeframe.
16. The resident told the Service that there had been no recurrences of the leak within the last 6 months. The resident said she understood the landlord had taken action to prevent a recurrence of the leak, but it had not formally advised her of the steps it had taken. Although this did not impact the outcome, it would have been reasonable to advise her of the actions it had taken to manage her expectations and reassure her that it was taking her concerns seriously.
17. The leak also impacted on the electricity in the resident’s property on several occasions. The resident told the Service it mainly impacted the electrics and lighting in the hallway and bathroom, not the whole property. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, it should resolve a partial loss of electricity within 3 working days. However, the landlord consistently failed to attend in good time. This was unreasonable and caused the resident to be distressed and concerned about the safety of the property.
    1. The landlord raised work orders on 31 July 2023 and 2 August 2023, to make the electrics and lighting safe. It attended on 15 August 2023 in relation to both repairs. This exceeded its response timeframe by 8 working days.
    2. It also raised a work order on 3 August 2023 to reconnect the bathroom light following the leak, which it completed on 11 August 2023. This slightly exceeded the repair timeframe by 3 working days.
    3. The resident said on 11 November 2023 that she was concerned about damp in the electrics following a further leak. The landlord raised a work order on 14 November 2023 to address the issue, which it attended on 30 November 2023, within 13 working days.
    4. In her complaint on 3 June 2024, the resident reported water dripped through the lightbulb and she heard “fizzing”, which she raised as a safety concern. The landlord raised a work order the following day. It raised a further work order on 12 June 2024 to make the hallway light safe which it attended on 8 July 2024. This took 25 working days.
18. The resident also reported damage to the interior of the property because of the leaks. On 22 September 2023 the resident reported stains in the hallway, damp and mould concerns, and light repair issues. The resident further pursued repairs to damage from the leak on 11 November 2023. The landlord did not take any action until 9 March 2024, when it raised a work order to repair the defective plaster and the ceiling damaged by the leak. It raised a further work order on 22 March 2024 to resolve the water damage, damp, and mould. It attended on 22 April 2024. The landlord therefore did not take any action to address the resident’s reports of damage to the interior for 7 months, which was an unreasonable delay.
19. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it could not gain access when it attended on 22 April 2024. However, the resident told the landlord on the day of the appointment that the contractor attended without prior notice. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord placed responsibility for the missed appointment on the resident. There is also no evidence the landlord promptly rescheduled the appointment, despite requests by the resident on 7 May 2024, 3 June 2024, and 11 June 2024. This meant the resident incurred additional time and trouble pursuing the repairs.
20. The landlord also asked the resident in its stage 1 response to send photos of the damp and mould so it could assess the issue. The resident had chased the matter numerous times, so if the landlord required additional information, it should have requested it at an earlier date. Its handling of the matter therefore caused avoidable delays.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had booked an appointment to inspect the damp and mould on 27 August 2024 and to repair the water damage on 2 September 2024. It said it would then complete any necessary follow-on work. The damp and mould inspection on 27 August 2024 identified numerous follow-on works, including a mould wash, making good cracks, and repainting several areas. The landlord raised a work order on 30 August 2024 to complete the recommended works, but there is no completion date. The landlord should ensure it follows any remedy proposed as part of the complaint resolution through to completion. As it failed to do so, it delayed resolving the issue in full.
22. The resident told the Service that there is still damp and mould present in the hallway, cupboard, kitchen, and bathroom. She told the Service a contractor had recently inspected, and works were due to commence in May 2025 at her request to delay them for a few weeks as she was unavailable. It appears the landlord is now taking appropriate steps to address the damp and mould, but such steps should have been completed at a much earlier date. An order has been made to resolve the damp and mould in full. The landlord must also redecorate where necessary.
23. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate it has taken suitable accountability for the works. This meant there were excessive delays in the handling of the repairs. Although it is positive to note the issues with the leak and electrics are now resolved, the damp and mould has been ongoing for over 19 months. This is a significant failing by the landlord. It is clear the issues have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, particularly due to safety concerns, and it has impacted her overall enjoyment of the property.
24. In its final response, the landlord offered £20 for each missed appointment. It appears only 1 of these relate to its handling of the leak, damp and mould. It also offered £20 for the delay, distress, and inconvenience. The compensation was not proportionate to the level of failure identified in this investigation. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £800 compensation. This is because the landlord’s failure had a significant impact on the resident. It should also apologise to the resident for its handling of the matter.
25. The resident also requested compensation for damaged belongings. The landlord’s compensation policy states “If a resident wishes to claim for damage or loss to their home or belongings, they should be advised to do so through their own contents’ insurance”. It also notes if the resident believes that the landlord is responsible for the damage, it will send a copy of its insurance form. The landlord must therefore provide the resident the necessary information to proceed with an insurance claim.
26. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – 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 will monitor the progress of this.
27. Moreover, 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.

Toilet repair issues

28. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the installations of sanitation, including toilets. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs to the toilet, where there is only one in the property, is an urgent repair to be completed within 3 working days. The resident’s property only has 1 toilet.
29. The resident reported on 1 March 2024 that the toilet was not flushing correctly. The landlord booked an appointment for 26 March 2024. This was unreasonable as it was outside of the repair timeframe.
30. On 8 March 2024 the resident asked to rearrange the appointment as she was unavailable. The landlord said on 27 March 2024 that it had rearranged the appointment for 9 April 2024. It took over 2 weeks for the landlord to address the resident’s request, which further delayed the timeframe for resolving the repair.
31. The resident said the appointment date on 9 April 2024 was also unsuitable. The landlord did not acknowledge her request. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it was unable to gain access on 9 April 2024. This was unreasonable given the resident had clearly attempted to rearrange the appointment. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping did not allow it to adequately oversee the repairs, including properly monitoring and actioning correspondence from the resident
32. The resident continued to request to rearrange the appointment. In its complaint response, the landlord said it attended on 24 May 2024 but was unable to gain access. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident of the appointment.
33. In its final response, the landlord said it booked an appointment to repair the toilet for 13 August 2024 and it would then arrange any follow-on work. The resident told the landlord on 2 September 2024 that the repair was unsuccessful, and the toilet was leaking. She said she had to continually empty containers of water. There is no evidence to confirm when the landlord completed the repair, but the resident advised the landlord reattended approximately 2 weeks later. It is important that the landlord has clear repair records to provide an accurate timeline.
34. Despite the lack of evidence to confirm the timeframe of the repairs, it is evident it took a minimum of over 5 months to complete the repair, which was unreasonable. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s requests to reschedule appointments and inform her about appointment dates. This caused significant delays in completing the repair. The resident said the toilet would only partially flush around once a day, so she had to flush it manually with water. Although this meant she was still somewhat able to use the toilet, it should have only been a temporary solution, as it would clearly cause inconvenience to the resident.
35. In its final response, the landlord offered £60 compensation for 3 missed appointments. This was appropriate, as £20 is the standard level of compensation per missed appointment. However, the landlord did not consider the wider impact or extent of the delay, so the overall compensation was not proportionate to the failings. The landlord must therefore pay the resident an additional £250 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused.

Request to be rehoused

36. It is understood that the resident’s main reason for requesting a property move is due to the repair issues in the property. The landlord must complete the repairs but would not necessarily be obliged to move the resident. Its handling of the repairs has been assessed separately under the corresponding complaint sections.
37. The landlord internally noted on 13 August 2024 that the resident wanted to be moved due to the continuous leaks. It appears this was the first time the resident initially raised the matter. In its stage 2 response the same day, the landlord said that the housing officer would contact the resident about her request to be rehoused.
38. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s request until 16 January 2025. It said the resident was adequately housed so was unable to join the housing register, unless she applied under medical grounds. It also provided information on alternative move options including mutual exchange.
39. While the information was appropriate, it was unreasonable that it took over 5 months to complete the actions set out in its final response. This meant there was a significant delay in the landlord managing the resident’s expectations about her move options. However, it is recognised that such information is available on the landlord’s website, which somewhat mitigates its failing. The landlord should apologise to the resident for its handling of the matter.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of toilet repair issues.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders

43. In addition to the £100 compensation already offered, within 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident a further £1050 comprised of:
    1. £800 compensation for the failings in its handling the leak, damp, and mould.
    2. £250 for the delays in repairing the toilet.
    3. It should provide evidence to the Service of the total payment of £1150.
44. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with information on how to proceed with an insurance claim for her damaged belongings.
    2. Send an apology to the resident for the delays in its handling of the repairs and the delay in providing information on rehousing options.
45. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should complete the recommended works to resolve the damp and mould. It should provide the Service with a copy of a post-inspection to confirm it has completed the repairs to an appropriate standard.
46. The landlord must provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.