London Borough of Lewisham (202435916)

Background

1. The resident is a single parent with 4 children, aged between 5 and 16 years old at the time of the complaint. She reported ongoing problems with her front door and windows to the landlord in the 2 years leading up to her complaint. She also reported problems with damp and mould which she said was affecting her and her family’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs and issues with damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s rehousing request.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and issues with damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs and issues with damp and mould

4. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it delayed in completing the resident’s repairs some of which she reported over 2 years ago. It compensated the resident but did not apologise to her. It failed to start and complete all the works within its planned timescales, so it did not fully resolve her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request

5. The landlord clearly explained the resident’s rehousing options to her, such as a mutual exchange. It gave details of what she could do to get further support with this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord’s acknowledgments of the resident’s initial and escalated complaints were delayed. This delayed its responses, which meant they were not sent in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not apologise in its final response or attempt to remedy its complaint handling. It also did not explain it was handling her legal compensation claim separately, outside of its complaints process.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. The resident raised repeated issues with her windows and front entrance door between March 2022 and July 2024. She complained about the landlord’s handling of these, and other repairs on 2 December 2024. She also instructed a solicitor to represent her, and they wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2024 to begin the pre-action protocol for disrepair claims. They asked the landlord to inspect the repairs, which also included a suspected leak under her kitchen sink and damp and mould throughout her property.
8. On 18 March 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor, acknowledging some of the repairs she had reported. This included its observation she had raised problems with her front entrance door since at least 28 December 2021. It offered compensation of £2,417.01 and agreed to send a ‘schedule of works’. We have not seen evidence of this follow up communication from the landlord to the resident’s solicitor.
9. In its final response to the resident’s complaint on 25 March 2025 the landlord explained it had inspected her property. It said it would “raise the necessary remedial work to carry out a three-part mould treatment”. It acknowledged it had booked in repairs incorrectly but missed an opportunity to apologise for this, or for its delays. It failed to clearly explain what repairs it would do, and its timescales for starting them, within its response. It did not offer compensation at this point or explain it was attempting to negotiate a settlement with her solicitor. It therefore did not resolve the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.
10. The day after its stage 2 complaint response, on 26 March 2025 the landlord agreed to settle the resident’s disrepair matter, pre-issue, by paying the compensation it had previously offered. It credited this to her rent account on 15 May 2025. We have not seen detailed terms of this pre-court action settlement. The landlord confirmed to us that it agreed to do the repairs which were recommended in its expert report. This report of 5 February 2025 recommended works including replacing the resident’s front entrance door. The solicitor wrote to the landlord on 26 March 2025 saying, “repairs should be completed by 24 July 2025”.
11. As the resident was legally represented in her disrepair case, we assume she was given competent legal advice about the compensation settlement offer made, the effects of accepting the offer and her legal rights and prospects of success if rejecting it. The landlord settled the matter the day after its complaint response. We consider the amount it offered at this point was reasonable as it aligns with what we may order in a case of this nature, in line with our remedies guidance.
12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Although we consider the compensation the landlord offered around the time of the complaint to reasonable, the landlord failed to put things right by promptly completing all the works it promised following its complaint response. We have therefore considered this in our assessment of this case. This includes its poor communication about when it would start and finish the repairs.
13. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 and 27 March 2025 saying it would start the repairs on 7 April 2024. It said they included replacing failed trickle vents, kitchen units, renewing doors and reglazing the windows in the children’s bedrooms, and installing ventilation in the main bedroom. The landlord failed to attend as promised and the resident chased the landlord on 6 and 9 April 2025. She said, “there is a terrible lack of communication”. The landlord’s records say it completed the repairs on 24 April 2025.
14. We found maladministration in this case and have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay more compensation. Its communication was poor, and it did not complete all the repairs it said it would within the timescales it promised. This includes the resident’s front entrance door which a surveyor recommended should be replaced in February 2025. The landlord did not explain its plans to resolve this issue, which it acknowledged had been ongoing since December 2022. The resident said she still has damp and mould in her property, and the landlord did not post-inspect its remedial work to “monitor the effectiveness of its solutions” in line with its policy.

What we have not considered

15. The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her because of the impact she said her housing conditions were having on her and her family’s health. Councils have a range of housing responsibilities. For example, under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 they must have a scheme which decides how they will prioritise, nominate, and allocate housing in their area. We can only consider complaints about a council’s housing management activities. A council’s decision about who gets preference under its allocations scheme is not a housing management activity. As such, we cannot consider complaints about this.
16. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her housing application, including consideration of her medical preference, she may complain to the council about this. If she remains dissatisfied with its response to this complaint, she may raise this issue with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and we have given her the details.

What we have considered

17. We considered the landlord’s general response to the resident’s request to move, which she raised in her complaint on 2 December 2024.  In its response on 24 December 2024, the landlord clearly explained her housing options. It said she could consider a mutual exchange, or renting through the private sector. It confirmed it gave her a factsheet on 18 December 2024, which explained her options. It also offered her more support by providing the number of its ‘Housing Management Team’.
18. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. Within its housing management ‘landlord’ function, it clearly explained her housing options. It signposted her to its other housing service within the council where she could go to get further support.

19. The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days, which aligns with the Code. In this case the landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages, which subsequently delayed its overall responses. It acknowledged her stage 1 complaint of 2 December 2024 on 16 December 2024, which was a delay of 5 working days. When she escalated her complaint on 6 February 2025 it acknowledged this on 26 February 2025, which represents a delay of 9 working days.
20. The landlord apologised for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints. However, it failed to show it considered compensating the resident in line with its policy. This says it may offer compensation up to £50 where it has not met its complaint response times. Because of this, it did not remedy its complaint handling delays.
21. The Code says that landlords must address all of points that residents raise in their complaint. In this case the landlord missed an opportunity to clearly address all the resident’s repairs it said it would do within its complaint response. Instead, it provided this 2 days later. It also failed to explain why it was not offering compensation to her as a remedy to her complaint. Its policy says that disrepair claims are handled separately but it did not clearly explain this to the resident within its complaint response.
22. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of her complaint, as its acknowledgements were delayed and it failed to explain what repairs it would do within its complaint response. It also did not acknowledge it was handling her disrepair claim separately within its complaint response. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with its policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

23. The landlord recognised its failures and settled the resident’s disrepair matter by compensating her. However, the landlord would benefit from establishing clear processes when responding to complaints where residents initiate legal proceedings. In this case it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s disrepair matter within its stage 2 response and explained its next steps to her.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s repair records could have been clearer in this case. It recorded several repairs as “job abandoned”, such a window inspection booked in on 15 January 2025. The landlord could consider explaining why jobs are abandoned within its records. This might help to inform its complaints team when responding to complaints.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaints process could have been clearer. An example of this was when it attempted to book in a mould wash in February 2025 but did not explain it would also be booking in other repairs. The resident raised concerns that the landlord was not was responding to her other repairs. The landlord could have been much clearer by outlining all the works it was intending to do, such as fixing the leak. Then providing a timescale of when it intended to do the repairs. This may have mitigated the resident’s evident disappointment with its handling of the situation and better managed her expectations.