From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Lewisham (202439765)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439765

London Borough of Lewisham

 

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:
    1. A blocked toilet which caused a back surge of wastewater, and damage to flooring.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord is a council. The resident lives at the property with his partner, and 5 children. One of his children has a heart condition. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities and has only recorded the resident and one daughter on its system.
  2. The resident called the landlord’s out of hours service on Friday 20 December 2024 to report that his only toilet was blocked, and wastewater was back surging into it and his bath. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended at 3am the following day but could not clear the blockage. The resident called it multiple times on 21 December 2024 to chase the repair and explained he had 5 young children, and one was disabled due to a heart condition. He also asked for a temporary toilet. It said it would attend in the early hours of 22 December 2024 but then said it was a no access. The resident said he had told it to call him as his intercom did not work, and he had not received a call. It delivered a temporary toilet, consisting of a bucket and chemical solution. It also raised a new repair, reattended, but could not clear the blockage. He called it again several times to explain the impact it was having on his family, and that the temporary toilet was not suitable. The landlord resolved the blockage on Monday 23 December 2025 by jetting the soil stack pipework for the block.
  3. On 3 January 2025 the resident reported he had damp and mould in every room. He said the landlord had taken photographs in 2024 but had done nothing further. The same day he made a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Having not been able to use his toilet or bath from the evening of 20 until the morning of 23 December 2024 and having had sewage in the property.
    2. It having attended as an emergency but without any tools and had tried to use his mop to unblock the toilet.
    3. He had told it he had 5 children, and one was disabled but it had not prioritised the repair.
    4. His bathroom walls and flooring had been damaged by wastewater when the toilet was jetted.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 January 2025. It responded to his report of damp and mould on 13 January 2025 and asked him to provide photographs. On 19 January 2025 it replaced a pipe to the water tank on the roof. It provided its stage 1 response on 23 January 2025, in which it:
    1. Acknowledged the frustration and distress caused. It accepted it had not been able to unblock the toilet on its first visit.
    2. Explained the issue occurred over a weekend when it had reduced staff and limited contractor resources.
    3. Partially upheld the complaint and offered £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  5. Between 24 and 25 January 2025 the resident and landlord exchanged emails about its response and his reports of damp and mould. He asked to escalate his complaint on 27 January 2025 as he was not satisfied with the level of compensation and having to make an insurance claim for damage caused. The resident and landlord exchanged further emails between 29 January 2025 and 6 February 2025 about damp and mould. It offered a mould wash and arranged a roofing inspection. It acknowledged escalation of the complaint on 6 February 2025. They exchanged further emails between 13 and 24 February 2025 about the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord also completed a mould wash and said it had passed the repair to its major works team. It completed a second mould wash on 5 March 2025. The following day it provided its stage 2 response, in which it:
    1. Advised him to make a claim to its insurers for damage caused during the unblocking of the toilet.
    2. Said it had completed a mould wash and had raised a roof inspection. It said it would contact him about repairs which it thought would take place from 10 March 2025.
    3. Partially upheld the complaint.
  6. Between 7 March 2025 and 22 April 2025 the resident chased the landlord for updates on the damp and mould repairs. In internal emails it said it had inspected the roof, but confirmed the issue was a leaking water tank. At the date of this report the resident has told the Ombudsman he still has damp and mould in several rooms. He said the landlord did paint previously, but he has been left with white stain blocked squares on his walls. He does not know when the issue will be resolved. He is concerned for the effects the damp and mould may be having on his children and especially his son who has a life limiting heart condition. He said he did not make an insurance claim but just wants to move to a more suitable property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a blocked toilet which caused a back surge of wastewater, and damage to flooring

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. It states this includes sinks, baths and toilets. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. When the resident reported that his toilet was blocked the landlord correctly accepted responsibility and raised a repair. Under its repairs policy “total failure of sanitation” is classed as an emergency repair, which it says it will attend and repair or ‘make safe’ within 24 hours. If it can only make safe it will complete follow-on repairs as either an urgent (repair within 3 working days) or routine (repair within 20 working days) repair.
  2. The landlord correctly attended to the emergency repair within its 24-hour policy timeframe. However, it could not resolve the issue, and the resident reported that it had come unprepared and without any tools, which was a failing. Instead of raising a follow-on repair, the landlord took no action until the resident called it again the following day. It then failed to give a meaningful update, or any time estimate to him, but did agree to send a different contractor. When he continued to chase it, the landlord did suggest a temporary decant, or move, however the resident explained this was not suitable. It was a few days before Christmas, the resident had 5 children and 2 dogs. In the alternative, it positively agreed to deliver a temporary toilet. However, it failed to call the resident for access after he had explained that his intercom did not work. Positively it did then deliver one, but over 36 hours had passed since he first reported the issue.
  3. When the resident called it again to chase the repair the landlord told him it had been raised. However, it had failed to re-raise the repair following the reported no-access, which caused further delay. Despite the resident’s multiple calls progress was slow. He had explained the effects not having a toilet on his family of 7 was having, and that he had sewage back surging into his toilet and bath. He explained the smell was horrendous and that he had no washing facilities. He said he had a disabled child and that the temporary toilet was not suitable. More concerningly, he told the landlord that its contractor had told him the pipework needed to be jetted, but it said this was not something it was able to do out of hours over the weekend.
  4. While the landlord did resolve the issue by jetting on the next working day, the whole experience was incredibly distressing for the resident. He had to make multiple calls to the landlord, and each time re-explain the problem and what had previously happened to a different member of the landlord’s staff. The Ombudsman has listened to the call recordings. Under its repairs policy, when it cannot complete a repair on the first visit, the landlord will proactively keep the resident updated with progress and arrangements. This did not happen. While its staff tried to be helpful, its processes meant it was not prepared to deal with a blocked soil stack out of hours, which demonstrated its processes had failed. By industry standards, jetting pipework is not a particularly specialist repair and it should have been able to complete this out of hours where an emergency repair was needed.
  5. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord followed its vulnerable resident’s policy. Although it did not have it recorded at the time, the resident told it multiple times about his son’s named heart condition, which made him more vulnerable. There is no evidence it tried to prioritise the repair which was a failing.
  6. Within its stage 1 response the landlord correctly acknowledged the frustration and distress caused and offered £100 compensation. Its explanation about its reduced staff and resources over the weekend confirms that its processes were not adequate to have dealt with the emergency repair. It offered no further compensation at stage 2. Regarding the resident’s request for compensation for his damaged flooring, the landlord initially said he should claim on his own insurance. When challenged it later provided a form for the resident to make a claim to its own liability insurers. The landlord’s approach was in line with its compensation policy. The tenancy agreement also contains a clause advising the resident to take out contents insurance. It was reasonable for the landlord to have directed the resident to its insurers, who were better placed to determine any liability for damage.
  7. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  8. Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord’s process for out of hours emergency repairs did not operate to resolve the issue within its policy timeframe. The landlord’s communication was poor, and it provided little detail on when it was going to attend. It also did not properly consider the household circumstances and the resident’s son’s medical condition. This caused significant distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact on the resident, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation, which is inclusive of its £100 offer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the property, and installations for the supply of water, under the tenancy agreement. Under its repairs policy it says if it needs to inspect before completing a repair it will then arrange any follow-on repairs promptly. It says it will proactively keep the resident updated including information about any further repairs appointments.
  2. It is not clear from the evidence when the resident first reported damp and mould. On 21 August 2024 the landlord inspected the property and discovered a leak from a water tank on the roof, which was going into the kitchen. It inspected again on 13 December 2024 and said it repaired the leak and completed repairs to the kitchen ceiling on an unknown date. It is not clear if the landlord monitored the situation after this date, but there is evidence of other residents in the block having reported leaks and that the landlord knew about issues with the water tank.
  3. When the resident reported damp and mould on 3 January 2025 the landlord asked him to send photographs 6 working days later. He had to chase it twice before it asked diagnostic questions by email and offered a mould wash at the end of January 2025. Under its damp and mould policy the landlord will ask questions to determine the potential cause and will follow this with an inspection or repairs. Positively, the landlord arranged an inspection, but it was slow to do so. It inspected 28 working days after he reported the issue. However, it did not carry out a damp and mould inspection but inspected the roof.
  4. While it is positive that the landlord completed 2 mould washes, and some patch painting, it did not provide further information to the resident. Under its damp and mould policy it says it will “communicate clearly and keep residents informed of what action we will be taking…and when we will do it”. The landlord did tell the resident it had passed the repairs to the relevant department, but it was not clear on what the work needed was or when it would be completed. There is also evidence the landlord had confused itself on the causes of the damp, from water ingress from the water tank, in an internal email dated 27 March 2025.
  5. The landlord included within, and responded to, the resident’s complaint about damp and mould at stage 2. However, its response gave incorrect information and there is no evidence it completed any remedial works after 10 March 2025 as it said it would. At the date of this report the resident still has damp and mould, and there is no evidence the landlord has a plan to resolve it, which is a significant failing.
  6. The landlord also has not demonstrated that it had considered the potential effects of damp and mould on the resident’s 5 children living in the 2-bedroom property which is a further failing. There is no evidence it took into account the resident’s son’s serious health condition or considered its vulnerable resident’s policy. One of the 29 identified hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
  7. There was severe maladministration. The landlord had not followed its damp and mould policy, its vulnerable resident’s policy, or complied with its repairing obligations. It has allowed the resident and his family, including a child with a medical condition, to remain in an overcrowded property with damp and mould for over 7 months at the date of this report. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information.
  2. There has been service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management because it failed to:
    1. Record the resident’s household details accurately, including his son’s medical condition. This was not in compliance with its vulnerable residents policy, which says it will record these details and encourage residents to share and keep this information up to date.
    2. Update its records after the resident told it multiple times about his household details. It told the Ombudsman “There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the [resident] or his daughter, who is also registered at the property”.
    3. Provide full evidence of when it completed repairs to the water tank in 2024.
    4. Record or provide evidence of the mould wash or treatments it completed with photographs or an inspection report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a blocked toilet which caused a back surge of wastewater, and damage to flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,300 compensation made up of:
      1. £300 (inclusive of its £100 offer) for the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the blocked toilet.
      2. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling reports of damp and mould.
    3. Complete a survey, whether by internal or external surveyor, of the property and the water tank and produce a report with photographs. The report is to detail the cause or causes of damp and mould, a schedule of repairs required to resolve the causes and the internal damage. A copy of the report is to be provided to the resident and this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Complete the repairs set out in the schedule of the report ordered above.
    2. Carry out a case review to include but not be limited to:
      1. Why it was not able to provide a jetting service out of hours, and what measures it could put in place to be able to in future if needed.
      2. How it handled the emergency repair, including its lack of ownership of the issue and lack of clear communication.
  3. The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service by the stated deadlines.