London Borough of Lewisham (202425782)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425782

Lewisham Council

10 July 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:
1. A roof leak, ceiling renewal, and asbestos management.
2. The resident’s request for the landlord to compensate her for damaged belongings
3. The resident’s request for the landlord to provide temporary accommodation during repair works.
4. Damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a 2 bedroom first floor flat with her teenage son. The resident has anxiety and her son has unspecified special needs. The landlord is a local authority. An arms-length management organisation (ALMO) provided housing management services until 1 October 2023 when these functions were taken over by the local authority. For simplicity, we have referred to both the ALMO and the local authority as ‘the landlord’.
On 3 June 2024 the landlord raised an order to repair a crack in the resident’s living room ceiling. It attended on 30 July 2024 and found an asbestos survey was required before the repair work. It completed the survey on 5 September 2024 which found asbestos in the textured ceiling coating. Although it was low risk the landlord agreed to renew the ceiling because of the cracks and the resident’s concerns about asbestos. It wrote to the resident on 18 September 2024 to offer a provisional start date of 21 October 2024. It said the resident would need to vacate the property for up to 4 hours while the landlord removed asbestos from the ceiling but could remain at home for the remaining works, estimated to take 2 more days.
On 23 September 2024 the resident reported a leak in the living room and bedroom which was affecting a light fitting. The landlord attended but could not trace the leak. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2024. She said:
1. There had been ongoing roof issues since 2021, and it was currently leaking.
2. She believed this had disturbed asbestos and was concerned about the health risks.
3. She was concerned she would not be able to work from home while the ceiling replacement was going on and did not want to take the day off. She asked the landlord to arrange temporary accommodation for the duration of the work.
4. She had made previous complaints about damp and mould which remained unresolved.
The landlord attended 3 times between 27 September and 1 October 2024 and made the electrics safe but still could not trace the leak. On 3 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the leak. Later that day she reported that the leak had caused the ceiling to collapse. She expressed concern that airborne asbestos particles could have contaminated her belongings, which she requested compensation for. The landlord attended and made the situation safe, which included a specialist contractor carrying out an air test.
The landlord attended on 21 October 2024 and removed the asbestos from the ceiling as well as the loft insulation. It also disposed of the living room carpet and a rug due to possible contamination. It carried out an air test, which confirmed the air was safe, and a water test, which confirmed there was a leak from the roof. It told the resident it had to postpone the rest of the ceiling work until 25 October 2024. The next day it provided temporary heaters.
The landlord attended on 25 to 28 October 2024 and completed the ceiling renewal. The landlord sent its stage 1 response the same day which said:
1. It had handled the repairs within reasonable timeframes and there was no service failure.
2. The property was fit for habitation and the work would not leave the resident unsafe, insecure, or without facilities. She had only needed to vacate the property for 4 hours for her own safety, which it considered a reasonable request.
3. It cleaned the affected areas on 3 October 2024 and did not consider deep cleaning necessary.
4. The resident had said the landlord had promised to compensate her for the living room carpet and other items, totalling more than £2,700. The landlord did not generally compensate for damaged goods and expected residents to have contents insurance. Staff members denied promising this and had only asked the resident to list damaged items to consider as part of the complaint. The landlord provided details of how the resident could claim against its insurance policy.
5. It had offered to compensate any additional heating costs the resident had incurred but the resident had not provided bills to demonstrate the cost. It offered her £60 based on previous calculations in similar circumstances but was willing to review this on receipt of bills.
6. The landlord would attend on 28 October 2024 to replaster the new ceiling boards.
7. The resident had shouted and sworn at staff on the phone and other staff had also reported abusive behaviour. The landlord had informed the resident’s housing officer of this.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 26 October 2024. She complained that:
1. The asbestos removal had taken 8 hours, and she had had nowhere to go during that time.
2. She was concerned about asbestos exposure in the time between the ceiling falling down and the air quality test. She wanted the landlord to arrange deep cleaning.
3. The landlord had not replaced the ceilings in the agreed timeframe and had not offered additional heating or temporary accommodation.
4. The compensation offered was not enough to cover all the damage.
5. She denied being abusive to staff.
The landlord completed the ceiling replacement on 28 October 2024. It carried out roof repairs to resolve the leak on 3 occasions between 22 November and 13 December 2024. On 8 and 13 December 2024 the resident reported that the ceiling collapse and removal had damaged her paintwork and caused a crack in the kitchen wall, and she wanted the landlord to repaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for how it handled the repairs, the delay renewing the ceiling, and its communication in general.
2. The landlord believed it had now resolved the leak but could not guarantee this until there was heavy rain.
3. There had been a miscommunication over the decorating works which it apologised for.
4. The resident had asked the landlord to paint over some other ceiling cracks it had repaired. The landlord would only paint after replastering if the area was at least 5 square meters. Areas smaller than this were the resident’s responsibility.
5. It had been waiting for the leak to be resolved before replacing the insulation. As there had been no further leaks the contractor would contact her to arrange this.
6. The damp and mould team would also contact her to arrange an inspection.
7. It reiterated its position on damaged goods but offered the resident an additional £250 compensation for the delays resolving the leak, the asbestos and ceiling work, and the distress caused by poor communication and insensitive negative labelling.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection in March 2025, followed by a mould wash. It replaced the loft insulation in April 2025. In June 2025 it offered the resident £1,000 via her solicitor as a settlement for repair issues including cracks in the kitchen wall and ceiling, which she accepted.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remains dissatisfied because:
1. She says there have been ongoing repair issues since 2020.
2. The landlord did not inspect the entire roof which she believes is still leaking.
3. The landlord did not provide adequate heating while she was without ceilings and loft insulation through the winter, which increased her heating bills.
4. The landlord did not provide temporary accommodation during the repairs, and she is concerned about the impact of inhaling asbestos particles.
5. The landlord did not replaster the ceiling properly.
6. Damp and mould are ongoing, and the landlord has not found the root cause of it.
7. She wants the landlord to compensate her for damaged belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated in her complaint that the issues had affected her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond our expertise to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements, which is not within the Ombudsman’s remit. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns she raised about health.
The resident stated in her complaint that there had been issues with the roof for several years and that she had made previous complaints about damp and mould. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and while sufficient evidence is available for it to reach an informed conclusion. It is more difficult for landlords to investigate less recent matters as, over time, records are less likely to be available, witness statements and testimonies become less reliable, and it becomes more difficult to verify accounts. Considering this, our investigation has only considered events up to 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint.

Roof leak, ceiling renewal, and asbestos management

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to repairs in the following timeframes:
1. 24 hours for emergency repairs. This includes repairs that remove immediate danger to people and avoid major damage to the property. If the landlord cannot complete the repair at the time, it will make the situation safe and complete follow up work as an urgent or routine repair.
2. 3 working days for urgent repairs. This includes work to prevent damage to the property or where there is a possible health or safety risk.
3. 20 working days for routine repairs. This is work which does not fall into the other categories.
The Ombudsman expects 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 provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord keeps repair logs detailing the dates of repair requests and appointments. However, it does not record the outcome of appointments and often does not record whether the resident requested a repair or the landlord identified it by some other means. This makes it difficult for us to investigate and assess the landlord’s actions.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records when or how it became aware of the crack in the living room ceiling. This means we cannot determine how long it was between then and when it attended the initial appointment. However, if we consider the initial report to be the date the repair was raised then it was almost a month past the appropriate timeframe for a routine repair when the landlord attended.
When the landlord attended on 30 July 2024 it found an asbestos survey was required. We would expect the landlord to treat this as a routine repair request and attend by 27 August 2024. It completed the survey on 5 September 2024, a minor delay.
The survey found asbestos was present in the textured ceiling coating throughout the property and in the kitchen and bathroom floor tiles. This was assessed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ risk and the surveyor’s advice was to manage rather than remove it. This is the default recommendation when the asbestos-containing material is in good to fair condition and sufficiently sealed or encapsulated.
However, due to cracks and the resident’s concerns about asbestos it agreed to remove, reboard, and skim the ceilings in the living room and 1 bedroom, which was positive. It is not clear exactly when the landlord agreed this but it raised the repair request on 12 September 2024 and offered a provisional start date of 21 October 2024. This was 11 calendar days outside the appropriate timeframe for a routine repair, a relatively slight delay.
The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm this on 18 September 2024. The letter explained that the textured ceiling coating was a low risk material in terms of potential fibre release and exposure. It reassured the resident that even while being removed, the exposure would not exceed safe limits. This was appropriate.
The resident reported a leak on 23 September 2024 which was affecting light fittings. The potential risk means it should have been treated as an emergency repair and either resolved or made safe within 24 hours. The landlord attended the same day, which was appropriate. However, it was unable to trace the leak and the evidence indicates it did not make the electrics safe until 4 calendar days later. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord gave the resident any advice on how to manage the leak or mitigate the risk in the meantime. This was not appropriate.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2024. The landlord was unable to trace the leak at subsequent visits over the next week. Internal emails on 2 October 2024 indicate that the resident had raised concerns about asbestos exposure during the ceiling works. The landlord had suggested repairing the damaged areas then encapsulating them to contain asbestos fibres rather than a full ceiling renewal, but the resident preferred to proceed as planned. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest this option.
On 3 October 2024 the living room ceiling collapsed, which would have disturbed the asbestos. The landlord attended and carried out an emergency environmental clean of the immediate area and put up a polythene sheet to contain the damaged ceiling void. It also carried out an air test which showed asbestos fibre concentration in the air was within safe limits. This was appropriate action.
On 21 October 2024 the landlord carried out a roof water test which confirmed the leak was coming from the roof. It removed the loft insulation as it was soaking wet. It also removed the textured ceiling coating and disposed of the resident’s carpet and rug. It informed the resident that it would have to postpone the ceiling works until 25 October 2024. The landlord later told her it was due to a staff bereavement. We appreciate that such things can happen and impact on the landlord’s service delivery. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining the situation to the resident and rearranging the works within a reasonable timeframe.
The resident was distressed by the delay and said the missing ceiling made the property very cold which impacted her family’s wellbeing. The landlord delivered temporary heaters to the property the following day. This was appropriate action.
The landlord began the ceiling works on 25 October 2024 and also sent its stage 1 response. The response stated that it had handled the repairs within reasonable timeframes and there had been no service failure. However, the landlord had not always adhered to the timeframes given in the repairs policy. Even if the landlord considered the delays to be minor it should have acknowledged and apologised for them in its response.
The response in relation to the resident’s concerns about asbestos was reasonable. It explained the steps the landlord had taken to ensure the resident’s safety, which was appropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £60 compensation to cover additional heating costs between 22 October 2024, when it provided the temporary heaters, and 28 October 2024, when the ceiling works were due to finish. This was reasonable, as was the offer to review the amount if the resident provided heating bills.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 26 October 2024, and the ceiling replacement was completed on 28 October 2024. The resident contacted the landlord to say that the ceiling removal had damaged the walls, which now had holes that needed filling. It is established case law that a landlord’s responsibility to do repairs includes the obligation to make good any damage that is a consequence of its actions (or delay in action). The landlord should have made good any damage as part of the ceiling works.
The landlord attended on 22 November 2024 and repointed the roof ridge and verge. On 27 November 2024 the resident reported that it was still leaking. The landlord attended within a day and found a hole in a tile and a tear in the felt beneath it, which it repaired. Internal emails show the contractor suggested stripping the area and replacing the felt to act as a secondary barrier as a precaution. They also gave their opinion that they should sweep the whole roof of moss and check all the tiles for similar defects, to prevent future issues.
The resident reported that the roof was still leaking on 8 December 2024. The landlord attended on 13 December 2024. This was 4 working days later, outside the timeframe for both an emergency and urgent repair. The contractor swept moss, inspected all the tiles, and repaired one. It told the landlord that several tiles had signs of wear and tear with small holes that would weaken over time. It said the roof appeared close to the end of its life and could not guarantee leaks would not occur in other areas. It said it would monitor this situation when it rained next and, if still leaking, would make further recommendations to strip the roof completely.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. It apologised for the delays and general communication, which was positive. It reiterated that the property had been safe and habitable during the works, which was appropriate.
The landlord said it had completed decorating the affected areas on 1 November 2024. This was not in the repair log, so it is not clear exactly what work it did. It explained that its policy was to only repaint areas after repairs if they were over 5 square meters.
This was inappropriate. There is no specific threshold or exception in case law or legislation that suggests landlords only have to make damage good if the repair area is greater than a certain size. Even small crack repair areas must be left in the same condition as before the repair, which may include filling and painting to ensure it blends in with the rest of the surface. We acknowledge that landlords need to use funds proportionately and that it may not be practical to pay a contractor a significant amount of money just to repair a hairline crack. However, this would not have been an issue had they repaired them during the substantive works or subsequent decorations.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider paying between £51 and £250 for service failures where the resident suffers a level of inconvenience or distress that exceeds what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept. We consider the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation at stage 2 to be reasonable.
In January 2025 the resident’s solicitor engaged an independent expert to inspect the property, following a letter of claim it had sent to the landlord. Its findings included cracks in the kitchen wall and cracks and stains in the kitchen and living room ceilings. It reported that these were indicative of an active leak from the roof. It said there had been an attempt to repair cracks in the kitchen, but workmanship had been poor. The expert recommended that the landlord:
1. Erect scaffolding to the rear of the elevation.
2. Investigate and overhaul the leak to the roof.
3. Fill in and prepare the cracks and damaged plaster to the kitchen wall and kitchen and living room ceilings.
4. Apply stain block paint.
5. Apply decorations to the ceilings.
6. Install a floor covering to the living room.
In May 2025 the landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation and promised the complete the recommended works within 120 days in order to settle the claim without court action.
There were a number of failings in this case. As well as the delay replacing loft insulation there were relatively minor delays with the initial ceiling crack inspection, the asbestos survey, attending after leak reports, and renewing the ceiling. It was more serious that the landlord did not make the electrics safe for 4 working days. In addition, the landlord did not acknowledge the delays in the stage 1 response and its record keeping was not in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations. It did not fully make good the damage caused to the kitchen walls and ceilings by the ceiling collapse and renewal, and the roof is still leaking, causing stains and cracks to the ceilings
The landlord admitted failings in its stage 2 response. When the landlord has admitted failings, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered puts things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The compensation offered at stage 2 was reasonable to cover the delays up until that point, however, the landlord did not replace the loft insulation until April 2025. This meant the resident had no insulation for around 6 months and all throughout the winter. Although the landlord later paid an additional £1,000 compensation this was in relation to the leak and stains and cracks in the walls and ceilings. Neither compensation award covered the delay in replacing the insulation.
This means the compensation paid is not adequate to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience the resident and her son suffered as a result of the delay in replacing the insulation. This made the property harder and more costly to heat. The resident also spent much time and trouble chasing the landlord and progressing her complaint.
We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and have made orders for the landlord to put things right. This includes an order to pay the resident additional compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation in the region of £400 for maladministration with an adverse but non-permanent impact. We consider this to be an appropriate amount to acknowledge the delay in replacing the insulation. We have also ordered the landlord to cover the increase in heating bills if the resident can evidence this.
Lastly, the landlord told us it did not have any vulnerabilities formally recorded for the resident’s household, so we have made an order in relation to this.

The resident’s request for the landlord to provide temporary accommodation during repair works

The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 September 2024 about the ceiling works and said that she would need to vacate the property for up to 4 hours while it removed asbestos. It gave a detailed explanation of the risk presented by textured ceiling coatings and examples of exposure readings taken during active removals. It also explained the controlled conditions it would carry out the works in to reduce the risk and that it would carry our air testing once complete to ensure it was safe for the resident to return. It said that, based on the estimated short duration of the asbestos removal, it would not be offering alternative accommodation for that time nor during the follow on works.
This was reasonable. The letter demonstrated that the landlord had considered whether temporary accommodation was necessary and assessed the risk appropriately. There is nothing to suggest that it was unsafe for the resident to remain in occupation during the works.
Additionally, the tenancy agreement says the resident must give the landlord reasonable access to the property to inspect or carry out any work. We consider asking the resident to vacate the property for 4 hours so it could carry out essential repairs to be a reasonable request.
The landlord removed the asbestos on 21 October 2024 and the subsequent air test confirmed it was safe for the resident to return. The ceiling renewal took place between 25 and 28 October 2024. The stage 1 response said the property had remained fit for habitation and the works had not left the resident unsafe, insecure, or without facilities. This was reasonable.
The stage 2 response reiterated that temporary accommodation had not been necessary. This was reasonable. However, the resident said in her stage 2 complaint that the asbestos removal had taken 8 hours rather than the estimated 4. The landlord apologised for delays in general terms in the stage 2 response but did not specifically address the time the work had taken. The landlord should have addressed this in the response.
The landlord’s records do not indicate how long the work took so we are unable to say whether it did take 8 hours. If it did, then the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for this. We still consider it reasonable for a resident to have to vacate the property for that period but would expect the landlord to inform the resident in advance that it might take that long so she could prepare for it.
Nevertheless, the landlord completed the work within a day and took the appropriate steps to ensure the property was safe. Taking everything into account we consider the landlord to have acted appropriately in relation to the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. There was no evidence to suggest the property was unsafe and the landlord took all reasonable steps to ensure safety and reassure the resident. As such, there was no maladministration.

The resident’s request for the landlord to compensate her for damaged belongings

The landlord’s repairs policy says tenants are expected to have adequate contents insurance in place and that the landlord will not generally compensate tenants for losses, unless directly as a result of its negligence or that of its contractors.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may not pay compensation for:
1. Damage which is beyond its control.
2. Claims where the resident is advised to use their contents insurance.
3. Extreme and unforeseen conditions where all reasonable steps were taken.
The resident said in her stage 1 complaint that the landlord had promised to compensate her for contaminated belongings. The landlord did not make notes of phone calls and in person conversations with the resident which means there is no record of the conversation she is referring to. The landlord must keep records of all contact with residents, including home visits.
The stage 1 response was reasonable. The landlord showed it had investigated the resident’s comments. It also explained that as a publicly funded organisation it has to consider carefully where it allocates funds, and that reimbursement of damaged items was not within its repairs remit. While there were issues with the leak and ceilings prior to the ceiling collapsing, the evidence available is not enough for us to determine that the landlord or its contractor was directly responsible for it. This means it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to make a claim through her contents insurance, or the landlord’s liability insurance.
In the stage 2 complaint the resident said the landlord had never advised her about contents insurance before. However, evidence shows that it did advise the resident to get contents insurance in a response to an MP enquiry in June 2021.
In its stage 2 response the landlord reiterated its position and offered to send the resident an insurance claim form. This was also reasonable.
In conclusion, we acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, and financial loss the resident suffered as a result of the ceiling collapse. However, as the collapse cannot be directly attributed to the landlord’s actions or inaction, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to pursue this via insurers. As such, there was no maladministration. The Ombudsman is unable to determine legal liability for the resident’s losses and we would advise her to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this further.

Damp and mould

Evidence shows the landlord treated mould in the 2021 and 2023. In her stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2024, the resident said damp and mould remained an issue. The landlord should have treated this as a routine repair request and addressed it within 20 working days.
The landlord responded on 25 October 2024, however, it failed to address the issue. It also failed to offer an appointment to inspect the damp and mould. This was inappropriate.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 26 October 2024. She did not mention damp and mould in the escalation email. During a call with the complaint handler on 27 November 2024 she reported seeing damp and mould in the area above the ceilings when they had been removed. The complaint handler said they would send photos to the damp and mould team to review.
The landlord did not follow up with the resident and there was no further contact on the matter until the stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. The response said the damp and mould team would contact her to arrange an inspection. This was inappropriate. At this stage at had been almost 3 months since the resident reported damp and mould, however, the landlord did not apologise for this or even acknowledge it. It would have been appropriate to apologise, offer an appointment date, and include this issue when calculating compensation.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 5 March 2025, followed by a mould wash but the resident says that the problem has returned. The Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould, ‘It’s not lifestyle’ (the Spotlight report) explains that we expect landlords to have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It also emphasises the importance of making an early and accurate diagnosis. While it is reasonable to carry out mould washes initially, landlords should consider the property’s repairs history. Damp and mould which returns after treatment indicates there is an underlying issue that must be remedied to resolve the problem permanently. It appears that this may be the case at the resident’s property, given the number of times she reported a reoccurrence.
In conclusion, there was an inappropriate delay responding to the resident’s report of damp and mould which has led us to make a finding of maladministration. The landlord should have attended within 20 working days yet it took 5.5 months. There was no communication with the resident in the interim period, except in relation to the formal complaint, and the landlord did not look further to investigate the cause of damp and mould. These were failures to act in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord should also have been more mindful of the Ombudsman’s expectations as outlined in the Spotlight report.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right including an order to compensate the resident. We consider £400 to be an appropriate sum. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation in this range for maladministration with a non-permanent impact.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how we expect landlords to handle complaints. It says landlords must:
1. Acknowledge and define stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
2. Acknowledge, define, and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of escalation.
3. Notify residents of any delays and seek to agree a new deadline.
4. Address all issues raised in the complaint in their responses.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on 11 October 2024. This was a week past the appropriate timeframe, which the landlord apologised for.
The landlord responded 10 working days later on 25 October 2024. This was appropriate, however the delayed acknowledgement meant the response was a week later than it should have been.
The response failed to address the damp and mould. This means the resident did not have the benefit of both a stage 1 response and a stage 2 review of this issue, effectively eliminating a stage of the complaints process.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 26 October 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it the next day. However, it did not respond until 19 December 2024, more than 5 weeks past the 20 working day deadline. The landlord did contact the resident to say there was a delay on 27 November 2024, but at that time it was already 5 calendar days overdue. The landlord said it was now aiming to respond by 4 December 2024 but did not inform the resident that was not going to meet that deadline. This was inappropriate.
The failure to address all issues raised at stage 1 and the delayed stage 2 response amount to maladministration. To put things right the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation in this range for complaint handling failures.

Review of policies and practice

In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record keeping which are 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 this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
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

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a roof leak, ceiling renewal, and asbestos management.
2. There was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request for temporary accommodation during the repair work.
3. There was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request for the landlord to compensate her for damaged belongings.
4. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks:
  1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
  2. Pay the resident £950 compensation broken down as:

(1) £400 in relation to the loft insulation.

(2) £400 in relation to the damp and mould.

(3) £150 in relation to complaint handling.

Carry out a full roof inspection to trace any leaks or defects that might lead to leaks in the future. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the inspection report outlining its findings and recommended actions.
Carry out an inspection of the resident’s property to ensure any damage caused by the ceiling collapse and renewal has been repaired. The landlord should then carry out the required work. This should include filling and painting holes and cracks and painting the renewed ceilings to a good standard, if necessary.
Invite the resident to provide heating bills for 21 October 2024 to 31 April 2025 and for the same period the previous year. If the total costs were higher in 2024/25 than the previous year the landlord must pay the resident the difference.
Carry out a damp and mould inspection to identify any underlying issues contributing to damp and mould. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the inspection report outlining its findings and recommended actions.
Contact the resident to obtain details of any vulnerabilities within the household. This information must be clearly recorded on its systems so it is considered when prioritising future repairs. This information should also be visible to the landlord’s contractors or shared with them when raising repairs.

Within 8 weeks:
1. Carry out any actions recommended in the roof inspection report.
2. Carry out any actions recommended in the damp and mould inspection report.
By 17 September 2025:
1. Install floor covering to the living room, as promised in its settlement offer letter.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to send communications out to residents about its contents insurance policy. This is to ensure all residents are aware of it and the benefits of taking out a policy.